[Note: I haven't had a chance to process the recent same-sex marriage decision in California. But in the meantime I thought it was worth pointing out why few gay men in that state will be taking advantage of their new "right to marry."]
"Suppose same-sex marriages were introduced by legislation that also made divorce much harder to obtain," mused National Review editor at large John O'Sullivan. "How many same-sex couples would then be rushing to join San Francisco's wedding carnival?"
My suspicion is that lesbians would heavily outnumber gay men and that there would be a great many grooms left waiting at the municipal altar. It is not lifelong commitment that the couples are seeking (except in moments of romantic fantasy), but the revolving door of modern marriage with no-fault divorce.
On the same February day in 2004 that O'Sullivan published his article, I wrote a similar post, proposing that advocates of gay marriage raise the bar on marital commitment:
By adopting a form of "covenant marriage," gays and lesbians could lead the charge in restoring the sanctity of marital commitment. It would also be much more difficult for foes of same-sex civil marriage to justify excluding homosexuals if they would be willing to adopt such a proposal. The American people are becoming more receptive to the idea of civil union yet are hesitant to expand the definition of marriage. If the purpose of same-sex marriage is to recognize a lifelong commitment to one partner, then homosexual couples should lead the way by adopting this higher standard.
I'll readily admit that my suggestion was made simply to call the bluff of gay marriage advocates. Calling it "marriage" does not change the fact that it has no resemblance to the actual institution. But I also have no illusions that male homosexuals would desire such a marital bond. Gay men--like men in general--tend to be more promiscuous than women. Yet unlike married heterosexual men, gay men don't assume that taking wedding vows means accepting sexual exclusivity.
Kevin Keith, a (heterosexual) proponent of gay rights and same-sex marriage, added a 1000 word essay in the comments section of a post I wrote on monogamy in homosexual relationships explaining why I shouldn't be surprised that gay men don't expect marital monogamy:
This sort of discussion is hardly rare, or new, in the gay community. There are many gays and lesbians who strongly value the right to marry, but few (none, more or less) who think of it as a gay ideal to have relationships that are as close as possible to the traditional hetero myth/ideal. The possibilities for different types of relationships have been common currency in the gay community and gay press for as long as there has been an open gay community.
I don't see what this proves about whatever issue you have in mind in raising the point. I honestly don't see what this article means to you at all.
... It is a given in the gay community that one-partner-forever hetero marriages are not necessarily a model for gays, or even a healthy model for straights either. As "sexual outlaws" to begin with, legally denied the stereotypical relationship even when they ask for it, gays are in a position to look across the board and choose more freely. They have had the chance to think carefully about what relationships they most value, and try to find ways to make them work. And in seeking to broaden the accepted legal definition of marriage, not all of them want to stop at the obvious first step - monogamous marriage for gays - but choose instead to take the opportunity to create legally-recognized relationships that fit the various ways in which humans combine.
What your article proves is that many gays are far ahead of many straights in thinking openly, creatively, and freely about human relationships - and that the rest of us have a lot to learn from that.
While it's possible that Kevin could be totally misrepresenting the views of the homosexual community, I think he's basically right. His view appears to confirm what I've found in researching the subject: monogamy is a "straight" ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationships.
To be fair, claiming that gay men may not value fidelity is not the same as claiming someone doesn't value a virtue such as courage or honor. Some values are universal and some are cultural moral norms. Sexual fidelity is a moral issue and it may be the case that it is not important in their relationships.
This supposition would appear to be supported by a number of research studies:
Few "gay" relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. Source: Pollack, M. " Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25.
50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.
In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)
Another large survey found that only 7 % of male homosexuals had been in a relationship that had lasted more than ten years. Source: K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report, (New York: Summit, 1979), pp. 339-40.
Homosexual author Seymour Kleinberg: "The prodigiousness of sex really depends deeply on change, and promiscuity is the easiest kind of change for gay men." Source: Seymour Klienberg, Alienated Affections (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1980), p. 171.
In a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38.
A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.
Extreme promiscuity has in fact been a common occurrence among homosexual males for a long time. Back in 1982, homosexual author Dennis Altman even admitted: " now there is a move toward claiming that this (promiscuity) is part of a different, perhaps even superior, way of managing sexual relationships... (t) he assumption that it is desirable to have frequent and varied sex partners is increasingly seen as a positive part of gay life style." Source: Dennis Altman, " The Homosexualization of America, The Americanization of the Homosexual, (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982) pp. 16-7.
According to the American Psychological Association, after the AIDS epidemic the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year. Source: Sally Ann Stewart, " AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men," USA Today, 21 November 1984.
The 1984 book the "The Male Couple " was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D, who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that "gay" couples lacked stability and long-term relationships. Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.
A Los Angeles study conducted in the late 1980s found that male homosexuals averaged over 20 partners per year. Source: L. Linn et al., " Recent Sexual Behaviors Among Homosexual Men Seeking Primary Medical Care," Archives of Internal Medicine 149 (December 1989): pp. 2685-90.
Two homosexual icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: " gay men aren't very good at having and holding lovers...(because) gay men tire of their partners (sexually) more rapidly than straight men." And according to them, the average homosexual male first "seeks (sexual) novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; (but) eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. " The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." Source: Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen," After the Ball," (NY: Doubleday, 1989) pp. 304-320.
In Spain, the average homosexual sexual encounters for men were 42 per year in 1989. Source: Rodriguez-Pichardo, A., et al " Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain," Genitourin Med, 1990; Vol. 66, pp. 423-27.
"Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., " Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.
A three-year study in Boston found that 77% of 481 male subjects had had more than 10 partners in the previous 5 years, 34% more than 50 partners in the previous 5 years. Source: G. R. Seage III et al., " The Relation Between Nitrite Inhalants, Unprotected Anal Intercourse and the Risk of Immunodeficiency Virus Infection," American Journal of Epidemiology 135 (January 1, 1992), p. 5.
Between 17% to 54% of "gay" men continue to practice high-risk sex post-AIDS, suggesting an addictive drive. Source: Whitehead, NE., Whitehead, Bk., Submission to the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee on the Human rights Commission Amendment Bill 1992 ( Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Lion of Judah Ministries, 1993 ).
The Washington Post reported in 1993 that despite all the AIDS education for almost a decade " increasing numbers of gay men...are lapsing into previous patterns of unsafe sexual practices...� Source: Andriote, John-Manuel, " Gay Men and Unsafe Sex: Bridging a Gap Between Knowledge and Behavior," The Washington Post, August 10, 1993, Z14.
Homosexuals still have 3-4 times as many partners as heterosexuals. Source: Laumann, FO. Gagnon, JH., Micheal, RT., Micheals, S., The Social Organization of Sexuality ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1994 ).
The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16.
A survey of 239 gay and bisexual males between the ages of 13 to 21 found that despite accurately understanding the odds of HIV infection, 63% participated in behavior that put them at "extreme high risk." Source: Ramafedi, Gary, " Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Beliefs and Behavior," Pediatrics, August 1994, vol. 94, no.2, pp. 163-168. Cf., Lemp, George F., et al, " Seroprevalence of HIV and Risk Behaviors Among Young Homosexual and Bisexual Men - The San Francisco/Berkeley Young Men's survey," Journal of the American Medical Association, August 10, 1994, vol. 272, no.6, pp.449-454.
Another story in The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term "monogamous" relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a "primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. " The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men," The Advocate, August 23, 1994.
A Los Angeles Study of young homosexual males in 1996 revealed that about 50% of those between 15 to 22 years of age had engaged in " high-risk, unprotected sex" during the previous 6 months. Source: Bettina Boxall, " Young Gays stray from Safe Sex, New Data Shows," Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1996, sec. A.
" The facts, enough gay men are once again having enough unsafe sex that the rates of HIV infection, gonorrhea and syphilis are returning to frightening heights. " Source: Kramer, Larry, " Gay Culture, Redefined," The New York Times, December 12, 1997, op ed page.
An upscale homosexual men's magazine, Genre, surveyed 1037 readers in October of 1996. Here are some of the results: " One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples." 52% have had sex in a public park. 45% have participated in three-way sex. 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. Source: LaBarbera, Peter, " Survey finds 40% of Gay men have had more than 40 Sex Partners," The Lambda Report, January-February 1998, p.20.
Some men who have sex with men (MSM) may be recruiting sex partners in anonymous venues more often now than in the recent past. Source: Sowell Rl, Lindsey C, Spicer T, "Group sex in gay men: its meaning and HIV prevention implications," Journal of Association of Nurses AIDS Care, 1998; Vol. 9: pp.59-71.
Studies consistently show age differences in the sexual activities of gay men. Younger men have more partners, a greater frequency of sex, "cruise" more and have shorter relationships than older men, while older men are more likely to pay for sex. Source: Gilmore, MR, Schwartz, P, Civic, D, (1999), The social context of sexuality: The case of the United States, In KK Holmes, PA Mardh, PF Sparling, SM Lemon, WE Stamm, P Piot, & JN Wasserhelt (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 23 (2). pp.109-114.
When STDs are introduced into the gay community, the size of the subsequent outbreak depends on the sexual mixing patterns of the gay community, the numbers of sex partners, concurrency of sexual partnerships, condom use, and frequency of partner change which at times can be great in the gay community. Source: Aral SQ., " sexual network patterns as determinants of STD rates: paradigm shift in behavioral Epidemiology of STDs made visible," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Vol. 26; pp. 262-264.
Judy Wieder, editor in chief of The Advocate, wrote that according to Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist who has researched homosexuality extensively - (males) are much more interested in causal sex and non monogamous relationships. In the same article, Gretchen Lee, managing editor of Curve, was quoted that one of her female staff writers wanted to "even cruise for sex as gay men do." Source: " Do gay men and lesbians get along?� XY Magazine, July 1999, no.20, p. 77.
Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.
The following study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) July 26th issue. A Cross-sectional survey conducted September 1999 through April 2000 with a total of 856 clients of the Denver Public Health HIV Counseling and testing Site in Colorado. 69.2% of the survey were men, 34.7% were homosexual or bisexual, and aged 20 to 50 years represented 84.1% of participants. The results show that 21.8% of those seeking sex over the internet had a history of STDs, 88.7% solicited oral sex, 41% had anal sex and 16.8% reported being sexually exposed to a person known to have HIV infection. Table 3 showed 135 (15.8%) of clients reporting that they had logged on to the internet to seek sex partners, and 88 (65.2%) of these having successfully initiated sexual contact: of those who had sex with more than 3 different Internet partners over a 6 month period was 34 (38.7%). Table 4 showed the majority of online seekers were men (65.2%), white (76.2%), and between the ages of 20 to 39 (63.2%). Also table 4 revealed that 67.7% of on line sex seekers were either homosexual or bisexual and that 76.7% meet and had homosexual sex encounters via the Internet. This led the researchers to conclude the following: Online seekers were more likely to be homosexual than offline clients and online partners were more likely to be homosexual than the online-no partner group. Finally, Table 5 reveals that online sex seekers were more likely to have had an STD and that 28.9% of online seekers reported exposing themselves to known HIV-positive partners. 63.4% and 72.9% respectively were homosexual sex encounters with 97% being oral sex and 69.4% being anal sex. Source: M. McFarlane, PhD., S.S. Bull, PhD., MPH., C.A. Rietmeijer, MD.,MPH., " The internet as a newly Emerging Risk Environment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases," Journal of American Medical Association, July 26, 2000: pp. 443-446.
Men's Health magazine reported in June that (heterosexual) men, on average, have 12.4 sex partners (in a lifetime), and have sex 1.5 times per week. These numbers may seem low to many gay men, who generally exercise greater sexual freedom than their heterosexual counterparts. But for a person who is sexually compulsive these numbers may seem shockingly low. Frequent sexual encounters may be accompanied by feelings or guilt and minor consequences. Ken (a gay man) suffers from Sexual Addiction, "It's just so much easier to have anonymous sex with someone I don't know. There is this buildup of excitement and a sexual rush, hoping the other guy will notice me...want me. After we connect, I just lose myself in the sex. It's really not about knowing the guy. I rarely even want to know his name. When it's over, I can simply walk away, " said Ken. Among the problems caused by sexual addiction in "gay" men is one of the most common of contracting frequent and/or multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) ( i.e., HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, etc.). Source: Shaun Bourget, M.A., M.F.T., " Sexual Addition: On a Road to Nowhere," GayHealth.com; July 26,2000.
(Quotes were taken from Citizen's for Parent's Rights)
Is monogamy a "straight" ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationships? If so, then this is not what most people, even the supporters of same-sex marriage, have in mind when they discuss this issue. The subject is already contentious enough when it is thought that these "marriages" are going to be exclusive; what will happen when it's discovered that what's being advocated is "same-sex open marriage?"
Joe's post is a re-run from May 1, 2006. You'll find that various commenters then effectively demolished his "argument."
Others (including gay and lesbian commenters) were far more effective than I was, but here is one of my comments from that thread:
I just wish Joe and other evangelicals would be honest about why they oppose gay marriage.
It's not because gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men (otherwise, it might make sense to also oppose marriage for African-Americans).
It's not to "protect the institution of marriage."
It's not for the good of the children.
It's not for any logical reason.
It's because they understand the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
Now why can't you admit that? Everything else is just a smokescreen for your real reason.
You did well in pointing out two important concerns:
1) Calling it "marriage" does not change the fact that it has no resemblance to the actual institution.
2) Is monogamy a "straight" ideal that may or may not be useful in gay relationships? If so, then this is not what most people, even the supporters of same-sex marriage, have in mind when they discuss this issue.
#2 could use a whole post on its own -- those matters of motivation behind the movement.
The redefinition of marriage to include homosexuals begins by making marriage a government-regulated secular contract rather that the historical socio-religious instution that it has been.
We must be careful, for if we argue from the end point of effect then it can be inferred that as we leave untouched the starting point of cause, it must be either accepted or too difficult to challenge, thus giving it some credence. (You touched on some of the motivations, and that was good. Perhaps more?) Even if the court ruling stands, the starting point remains the same: Homosexual unions are not marriage, no matter what they are called.
Besides the ever-present "subert the dominant paradigm" attitude, there is an insidious capitalistic motivation behind homosexual marriage -- how much more money can the trial lawyers make on homosexual divorce.
Collin
Joe, I appreciate your research here. My only concern is in how dated most of it is. Is there nothing more recent on this issue? Is there a correlation between AIDS awareness and a decrease in casual sex, or are participants just being more careful? I don't think it skews your point, but I also don't think it strengthens it to a broader base.
Well, speaking personally, I'm a gay 22 year old who'd support covenant marriage and allowing husbands and wives to sue their spouses for adultery. I want only one sexual partner per lifetime. Of course, I could be wildly statistically anomalous. (I suspect I am when it comes to the covenant marriage.) But what about monogamy?
I know a number of long term (some *very* long term) male-male partners. A couple of them have said, when I've raised the subject with them, that they've always been monogamous.Of course, I haven't asked this question of many couples. (It's not the sort of thing you usually discuss with people, is it?)
I'm not so sure how reliable the statistics in the post above. Many of the studies were conducted in the 70s, at the height of the bathhouse culture, radical gay liberation, when flouting mainstream norms was a much bigger part of gay identity. Another consideration: It's obviously far easier to collect a sample for a research study of gay men at a gay nightclub than taking a large random sample of the population and identifying the 2% that are gay. But imagine what STD/relationship stability statistics would look like for heterosexuals polled in a straight nightclub. How many of those statistics were gathered from sources that could have skewed the data?
I'm not denying that there are problems with STD rates, relationship instability and general promiscuity in the 'gay ghetto'. But I think that a large part of it was that until recently gays were rejected by society and many rejected society's norms in return. I don't think that this is as severe or permanent as the post above makes out. Gay marriage and gay adoption weren't on the radar screen until quite recently. Older generations will have been more likely to have their worldview set without them. As gays have achieved more acceptance from society, younger generations have grown more mainstream in their aspirations. For instance,
This study claims showed 80% of gay male 18-25 year olds expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30 and over 50% expect to raise children:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/540057/
This NYT article mentions the same trend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27young-t.html
A poll I saw recently but can't find the link to claimed that while older gay demographics thought that hate crimes laws were the most pressing gay issue, 18-25 years old considered gay adoption and marriage the most important, which would be another pointer in the same direction.
It's difficult to judge how things will be a few decades from now. According to US Census data from 2006, same-sex couples constitute 1.0% of coupled households and 0.6% of all households in the country, with 49% male and 51% female. 20% of same sex households were raising children, as opposed to 50% of married households. Most strikingly of all the number of same-sex households increased by 436% from 1990 to 2006. This rapid change suggests that norms and values are changing in the gay community.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/ACSBriefFinal.pdf
http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf
Due to the greater male libido I expect that participation rates in male-male marriage will always be somewhat lower than heterosexuals' rates, and, as fewer females are interested in promiscuous sex, male gays will have more lifetime partners than male straights. But in a few decades I'm not sure how great the difference will be.
PS Sorry if this is unclear and rambling.
I'm stunned. If the gay community is really having that much sex, how have they had enough time on their hands to take over Hollywood, the Media, and be on every show on TV? When do they sleep? (I speak with slight hyperbole, but still. Wow.)
Joe, you forgot to mention "teh Gay Agenda" to undermine 5,000 years of judeo-christian civilization......
I'm not so sure how reliable the statistics in the post above. Many of the studies were conducted in the 70s, at the height of the bathhouse culture, radical gay liberation, when flouting mainstream norms was a much bigger part of gay identity. Another consideration: It's obviously far easier to collect a sample for a research study of gay men at a gay nightclub than taking a large random sample of the population and identifying the 2% that are gay.
Indeed, what would an alien from another planet think heterosexual behavior was like if their sample was a group of Three's Company episodes and little else?
Joe has a point that males are prone to promiscuity than females. (BTW, ever notice that the lower rates of promiscuity among females is never addressed when the issue of gay marriage comes up? It's as if the right is simply blind to homosexuals who are not men.). But the fact is gay male promiscuity was almost certainly at a peak in earlier times. Why? Because it was socially almost impossible to be gay and not be promiscuous (unless you choose to be celebrite). To have been gay and monogamous in earlier times would have made it almost impossible not to become publically known as gay.
Now that it is more and more socially acceptable to be gay the promiscuity levels have nowhere else to go but down no matter what the policy is on marriage. But there's something else I don't like about this argument.....
That is this myth that males are simply promiscuous by nature and only being 'tamed' by a single female can they behave otherwise. I'm a male and while yes I was probably less inclined to monogamy in my younger days the fact remains I'm not some type of swinger trapped into monogamy by a huge population of chaste women. Most men I know are likewise pretty comfortable with monogamy. Even in cheating, men, I think, are more likely to add another 'monogamous like' relationship to one that already exists than to engage in pure swinging hooking up with random people every night. If men suddenly find themselves in a situation where it is possible to behave like that (say suddenly hitting it big as a rock star), I think many will indulge initially in promiscuity but in the long run settle down in a patter of more or less monogamous relationships.
I'm not saying no men are promiscous but I think the larger reality is most of the time in the long run true promiscuity is either a relatively short period in mens' lives or exists only in their make-believe daydreams.
It is not lifelong commitment that the couples are seeking (except in moments of romantic fantasy), but the revolving door of modern marriage with no-fault divorce.
This is a pretty strange statement. 'No-fault' divorce is hardly the same thing as 'free divorce'. As Joe should know, divorce is hardly free and hardly very fun. People who have absolutely no intent to make a lifelong commitment should not be getting married unless they enjoy spending lots of money and time on legal entanglements. When you're married you can end up having to eventually share your social security check, lose control of your earnings and share ownership of your assets with your spouse. I suppose this is no big deal to two 18 year olds who have no real earnings or assets and who think retirement is 100,000 years in the future but the rest of us who are grownups live in a very different world.
The American people are becoming more receptive to the idea of civil union yet are hesitant to expand the definition of marriage. If the purpose of same-sex marriage is to recognize a lifelong commitment to one partner, then homosexual couples should lead the way by adopting this higher standard
I'm not sure why this should be? Why should gays have or advocate a higher standard of marriage than the one that exists now? Nobody asked interracial couples to adopt a different marriage standard. If people think covenant marriage is a good idea they should adovate it for that reason alone, and if they don't they should not. Gay marriage is a different issue.
This leaves only two other reasons for gays to support covenant marriage:
1. AS part of a political deal....give social conservatives something they want and social conservatives will stop making such a big deal about gay marriage. AS with any political deal, then, the usual calculations apply. Let's face it, the right has been pretty nasty when it comes to gays and their anti-gay hysteria has been getting less and less popular as time goes by. What benefit can the right really offer to gays at this point? Why should they cut a deal?
2. AS PR to re-assure straights that they want marriage in order to have monogamous relationships & not 'import' mass promiscuity into marriage. Again any gay person who gets married while thinking he is going stay promiscuous is only setting himself up to get badly burned. Also gays are a small portion of the population, even if they had marriage rates higher than straights they would still never be more than a few drops in the bucket of marriages nationwide. Finally, if straights are so worried about the character of marriage falling then why don't they stop throwing stones in their glass houses? How many once, twice, thrice divorced spokesmen will the right trote out in front of us to speak on behalf of marriage? How many more 'marriage defenders' do we have to see on the front page with mistresses & bastard children. The right does a much better job getting its members to 'toe the line' on tax cuts than it does marriage.
"But I think that a large part of it was that until recently gays were rejected by society and many rejected society's norms in return."
I think Serek's comments underline the real issue: A yearning to legitimize their lifestyle under religious/societal mores.
A civil union doesn't do this, which is why it's an ineffective substitute though it is some guarantee of equality in terms of access to public services and benefits. Agree with Serek that society is slowly giving ground to the opinion that gaymarriage undermines the sanctity of this covenant (cf Mark 10:7). But then, marriage is nowhere near the institution it once was among straight couples either - hence your point Joe that no fault divorce is assumed to be part of the deal.
I once corresponded with Andrew Sullivan on this subject, and asked: If marriage was a biblical picture of Christ (husband) and the Church (wife), who in a gay relationship would fulfill these respective roles, and whether it's even possible to call gaymarriage a sacrement. His honest answer was that his position on gaymarriage made it nearly impossible to reconcile with his relationship with the Church.
I think Sullivan summarized the dilemma pretty neatly.
Don
A civil union doesn't do this, which is why it's an ineffective substitute though it is some guarantee of equality in terms of access to public services and benefits.
Problems with civil union:
1. Conservatives have not shown themselves to 'negotiate in good faith' (to use ucfengr's term on the Overheard(v.11) thread) on civil unions. Quite often they have written their 'marriage defense' proposals to not only preserve marriage for straights but also to make civil unions almost impossible...in some cases to even threaten private contracts if they seem designed to simulate marriage. Since gays cannot trust the right to not attack civil unions legally getting inside the marriage tent is a good strategy since the GOP isn't going to abolish marriage.
2. Even if the right was acting in good faith, seperate but equal rarely works. There's little incentive for the majority to keep the 'equal' end of the deal.
3. Many forms of civil union are not exactly equal legally to marriage so by accepting it you are not accepting equality of access to public services and benefits.
4. As a Sullivan reader, you're probably aware that to the degree Civil Unions co-exist with marriage you're actually making a more radical change to marriage law than gay marriage is. Instead of having married.v.unmarried you now have marriage and 'marriage-lite' and there's no reason to think heterosexuals won't end up using civil unions even more than gays will.
5. If you make civil unions exactly equal to marriage and limit them to gay couples then you've basically made gay marriage. What's the point of calling it by a different name? If you want you can call it civil-marriage but that is no different than what we have today. Today the Catholic Church does not recognize divorced people who remarry. Their marriages are civil marriages but not recognized by the Catholic Church. Churches have always had the right to define marriage in different and more limited ways than the local government does.
1. Conservatives have not shown themselves to 'negotiate in good faith' (to use ucfengr's term on the Overheard(v.11) thread) on civil unions.
I'm not really sure why you are trying to bring me into this.
2. Even if the right was acting in good faith, seperate but equal rarely works. There's little incentive for the majority to keep the 'equal' end of the deal.
"Separate but equal"? I don't see how that applies here. Gays have the exact same right to marry as I do. They are allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex, just like me. They can get married in a church or by a Justice of the Peace, just like me. If you are going to argue "separate but equal" for gays, then I am going to claim the same thing for me. I am a Muslim, and my religious tradition allows me to have up to 4 wives, but the law says I can have only one. If not allowing same-sex couples to marry is "separate but equal", then so is this blatant discrimination against Muslims.
3. Many forms of civil union are not exactly equal legally to marriage so by accepting it you are not accepting equality of access to public services and benefits.
What is the purpose for conferring a preferred status on traditional marriage?
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
ucfengr
"Separate but equal"? I don't see how that applies here. Gays have the exact same right to marry as I do.
Just as the old bans on interracial marriage supposedly were exactly the same for whites and blacks (a white couldn't marry a black just as much as a black couldn't marry a white). This argument spins on playing word games...six of one half dozen of another.
What is the purpose for conferring a preferred status on traditional marriage?
Let's back up here, Don asserted that gays have rejected civil unions because they don't fulfill "A yearning to legitimize their lifestyle under religious/societal mores." My post was pointing out there are a lot of reasons for gays to reject civil unions even if they don't particularly care about getting some type of legal seal of approval for their relationships. "Pro-marriage" right wingers have attacked civil union laws as well as even private contracts. Being that gays in civil unions would be a minority the separate but equal solution would be politically dangerous for them to embrace. Hence the motive to demand equal access to marriage rather than some alternative "marriage by another name".
The argument being put forth here is that having legal access to marriage is the same thing as social endorsement...so if you vote for gay marriage you're voting to endorse gays or being gays or whatnot. This is not quite true. There are marriages that are legal but we don't endorse. For example, when we hear about a 90 year old rich guy marrying a 20 year old woman we usually disapprove of both but legally such marriages are perfect. Likewise the Catholic Church has long rejected the new marriages of people who ended old ones in divorce. There's no particular reason to tie civil marriage to social endorsement. In the US, at least, we have a pluralistic society. What is unacceptable in some groups is accepted in others. Hence it is ok that the law, for example, accepts Joe's remarriage but his local Catholic Church does not. Likewise the fact that it is legal to marry after getting a divorce doesn't alter the Catholic Church's stand on it (to the dismay of many remarried Catholics).
Don's argument, therefore, doesn't work. Having gay marriage wouldn't magically alter the position of any church on gays or gay relationships. If advocates of gay marriage only care about the civil benefits of marriage then they would not be politically wise to accept civil unions as a substitute. Those opposed to gay marriage may do well to break with the notion that civil marriage must always line up with religious marriage. If you were a serious Baptist, for example, wouldn't you choose to get married in a Baptist Church by a Baptist minister abiding by the rules that faith lays down? You wouldn't ask the local rabbi to marry you....barring some exceptional situation (you're on a sinking ship and it's only you, your fiance and a rabbi).
I am a Muslim, and my religious tradition allows me to have up to 4 wives, but the law says I can have only one. If not allowing same-sex couples to marry is "separate but equal", then so is this blatant discrimination against Muslims.
Is a partnership the same thing as a corporation? The problem with going from gay marriage to polygamy & other forms is that you are not talking about the same thing. For example, how would divorce work with gay marriage? Easy, just like it does with straight marriage. Modern law does not have gender roles in marriage law so there's really no confusion. In older times if there were laws like "only the husband may initiate a divorce"....well that would be hard to apply to a marriage of two women but the law has long since become gender neutral. It is not number neutral. You and your four wives are married...one wants a divorce. How does that work? Does she leave the marriage? What if wife #3 only married you because she got along with the one who just left? Does the whole marriage end and you and the two left over women have to make a new marriage? If you die are your 4 wives still married to each other? If not then what if one of your wives die, are you all now single?
If you want to have marriages with more than two people you have to answer these questions and there's no obvious answer in today's law. You have some 'templates' from other cultures but they contradict each other. Old-school Mormons, for example, don't limit you to 4 wives. New age hippie types would probably have women be able to marry multiple men and so on.
People who argue that having gay marriage would mean that we have to have multiple marriage haven't really thought about it. Try to imagine the actual argument you would present to a Court that would answer the questions above and compare how those questions don't even need to be asked in arguments about gay marriage.
I feel really weird because I agree, as an evanglical, with ex-preacher. I admit that the only problem I have with the homosexual lifestyle is that the Bible teaches it to be a perversion and as such it is an offense to God. It's the same reason that I find adultery offensive. I would feel the same way if we found out that gay marriage stopped global warming and saved the whales and made all the old growth forests come back and stopped the oil crises.
Regardless of one's view on it, it seems fairly obvious to me that marriage in this country has always been viewed through a Christian lens. That's why we have sodomy laws and adultery laws and marriage laws in general. It seems that we are in the process of overthrowing that. I do wonder how such a world will ban consentual polygamy. It seems absurd to do so at this point. Of course, the pedophile problem in the polygamist cult is different on the grounds that pedophillia is still morally repugnant to most.
Some evangelical throw me a bone here. Is there another reason for us to oppose this besides the teaching of Scripture? It seems sort of dishonest to pretend otherwise. Are we trying to get people to accept biblical morality without kneeling before the biblical Savior? To me, that is a nearly fruitless endeavor. At the end of the day, the Ex-Preacher may thnk I'm a rube, but at least he knows where I'm coming from.
I feel really weird because I agree, as an evanglical, with ex-preacher. I admit that the only problem I have with the homosexual lifestyle is that the Bible teaches it to be a perversion and as such it is an offense to God. It's the same reason that I find adultery offensive. I would feel the same way if we found out that gay marriage stopped global warming and saved the whales and made all the old growth forests come back and stopped the oil crises.
Regardless of one's view on it, it seems fairly obvious to me that marriage in this country has always been viewed through a Christian lens. That's why we have sodomy laws and adultery laws and marriage laws in general. It seems that we are in the process of overthrowing that. I do wonder how such a world will ban consentual polygamy. It seems absurd to do so at this point. Of course, the pedophile problem in the polygamist cult is different on the grounds that pedophillia is still morally repugnant to most.
Some evangelical throw me a bone here. Is there another reason for us to oppose this besides the teaching of Scripture? It seems sort of dishonest to pretend otherwise. Are we trying to get people to accept biblical morality without kneeling before the biblical Savior? To me, that is a nearly fruitless endeavor. At the end of the day, the Ex-Preacher may thnk I'm a rube, but at least he knows where I'm coming from.
Ex-Preacher: "It's because they understand the Bible to teach that homosexuality is a sin. Now why can't you admit that?"
What is there to admit to? OF COURSE, Scripture objectively, transcendently, and absolutely teaches that same-sex behavior is a sin.
If you consider that a stunning admission, so be it.
That's why we have sodomy laws and adultery laws and marriage laws in general. It seems that we are in the process of overthrowing that. I do wonder how such a world will ban consentual polygamy. It seems absurd to do so at this point. Of course, the pedophile problem in the polygamist cult is different on the grounds that pedophillia is still morally repugnant to most.
It might be helpful to apply the legal idea of scrutiny and 'suspect classes' here. Any law that treats people differently based on race is subject to strict scrutiny because race is a suspect class. In other words, because of the long history of unjust discrimination based on racial differences, any law that uses race requires a really powerful justification. Gender is likewise subject to scrutiny but not quite as much as race. That is why it is ok to have male and female bathrooms but not white and black bathrooms.
What is subject to very low scrutiny is age. If one state sets the drinking age at 19 and then decides to make it 21, angry 20 year olds don't have much of a legal argument against it. But if a state made the drinking age for blacks 22 the case against it would be very powerful. If a state made the drinking age for women 22 it would likewise be a pretty easy case to overturn the law for any lawyer who took it on.
What is likewise not subject to much scurtiny is 'number'. In other words, if you can't marry Jim because Jim has one wife and you'd be wife #2....well such laws are not subject to such scrutiny. It would be very complicated if they were because there's a lot of reasons for gov't to use numbers when making laws. The first person to the patent office gets the patent while the second does not....but if someone dies without a will his estate is divided evenly among his kids without regard to who was born first....
It's very easy to say gov't should not make laws that discriminate on race or gender. Saying gov't cannot make laws that discriminate based on age is possible but not very convincing. Saying gov't can't make laws that discriminate based on number is almost absurdly impossible.
Boontoon,
Dude, are you agreeing with me? I read that like you are agreeing with me. If you and me and ex-preacher all agree I'm going to lose all my street cred.
Indeed, we all seem to be in the same mode here. The only thing I'm really not taking a position on is religion. Most forms of Christinaity don't permit gay marriage, a few do. Other religions will have to decide themselves. Legally, though, I'm not really seeing any valid argument here beyond "my religion is against it'.
So, that's the only valid argument you are seeing here, but you are rejecting it out-of-hand... because why? Is it because it is a religious argument, and you don't want to allow it because that would allow a preference for one religion over another?
Is it because it is a religious argument, and you don't want to allow it because that would allow a preference for one religion over another?
Good point, if your only argument is "my religion rejects it" then you're basically saying your religion should be made into law for everyone. If you want to make that argument go ahead but we'll need something more before a secular society with many different religions will accept that.
Here's a thought on this:
The traditional argument for abstinance based education is that teenagers are not slaves to the hormones. Even if a large portion of people are doing it they can still choose to say no. Even if pre-marital sex is accepted by the larger culture that can be changed if institutions, social pressure and other tactics are used to counter it.
Here, though, Joe makes the entirely opposite conclusion. Because gay men were very promiscuous in the disco 70's that's all they can ever be. Men are slaves to biology and since gay men do not have the check on their behavior that straight men have from less promiscuous inclined women they can never be less promiscuous no matter what the social institutions are or what cultural changes take place. Therefore gay marriage can't even be tried because gay men will just bring the bathhouse to the wedding chapel no matter what!
Sounds like a contradiction to free will, no?
I admit that the only problem I have with the homosexual lifestyle is that the Bible teaches it to be a perversion and as such it is an offense to God.
This is a separate issue from whether or not non-traditional relationships should be accorded marital status.
Just as the old bans on interracial marriage supposedly were exactly the same for whites and blacks (a white couldn't marry a black just as much as a black couldn't marry a white). This argument spins on playing word games...six of one half dozen of another.
I wasn't aware that sexual preference and race were the same thing. Since one is an immutable characteristic and one can change over time, it would be hard to argue that they are. In any case, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in Anderson v. King County:
"Finally, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) does not violate the state constitution’s equal rights amendment because that provision prohibits laws that render benefits to or restrict or deny rights of one sex. DOMA treats both sexes the same; neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex."
Agreeing with me that race and sexual preference are not the same thing.
Let's back up here, Don asserted that gays have rejected civil unions because they don't fulfill "A yearning to legitimize their lifestyle under religious/societal mores."...
Boonton, if you don't want to answer a question, don't respond to it. You typed 417 words in response to my question on why traditional marriage is given a preferred status and didn't even come close to addressing it, let alone answering it. But because I am feeling magnanimous I will help you out. In Anderson, the Washington Supreme Court ruled:
We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the
State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father
and children biologically related to both.
In Conway v. Dean (2007) the Maryland Supreme Court ruled:
"marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation. This ‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding)."
Maybe that will help you out on why traditional marriage enjoys its privileged position.
Is a partnership the same thing as a corporation?
Is a marriage the same thing as a business agreement?
The problem with going from gay marriage to polygamy & other forms is that you are not talking about the same thing. For example, how would divorce work with gay marriage?...
Well, if marriage is merely another business arrangement, which you seem to argue, then its really not that difficult to accommodate. If 4 people are in business together and one wants to leave, what happens? The other partners buy him out. What happens if one of the partners dies? The partners can either dissolve the business, buy the partner's heirs out, or bring in the heirs as new partners. It could easily work the same way in a marriage, assuming, as you argue, that marriage is just another business arrangement.
Nah, I usually only make religious/moral arguments in situations with people that respond to religious/moral arguments. I've never seen you do that. My point was that you seemed to acknowledge that the religious argument was the only valid argument you had seen so far in this thread. I realize it was probably more inadvertantly made by you in haste than intentional, but it's fun to tease you about slip ups like that. Besides, you have your hands more than full trying to answer (or rather dodge answering) Ucfengr's arguments and couldn't possibly handle anything I might throw out there as well.
ucfengr
I wasn't aware that sexual preference and race were the same thing. Since one is an immutable characteristic and one can change over time, it would be hard to argue that they are.
Last I checked, gender was pretty much as immutable as race.
In any case, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in ...
You do realize that each state SC rules on its own state constitution right? In any case, the reading you're presenting would apply to race as well. In the old days everyone was 'equally' prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite race.
You typed 417 words in response to my question on why traditional marriage is given a preferred status and didn't even come close to addressing it, let alone answering it.
I'll get to it...
Well, if marriage is merely another business arrangement, which you seem to argue, then its really not that difficult to accommodate. If 4 people are in business together and one wants to leave, what happens?
Depends, if they are owners of a corporation the 4th will sell his interest and go his way. If they are a partnership then the whole partnership dissolves and the 3 remaining must choose to form a new partnership on their own. Of course you could make it so that a partnership is more like a corporation and one partner leaving does not dissolve it. AS I said the 'template' has been choosen over time by trial and error.
How does it work with multiple marriage? WEll in Mormon and Muslim circles the death of a wife does not dissolve a marriage but the death of a husband does. But it need not be that way. No doubt a new age hippy group might want left over widows to be married to each other...or you can go for the partnership template and have the whole thing dissolve and a new one need to be formed etc.
The partners can either dissolve the business, buy the partner's heirs out, or bring in the heirs as new partners. It could easily work the same way in a marriage, assuming, as you argue, that marriage is just another business arrangement.
Your missing the point, I wasn't saying marriage was a business arrangement. I was pointing out that in reality marriage law is gender neutral but not number neutral. YOu can't just say if gays have a right to same sex marriage Muslims have a right to polygamy. Which polygamy? There's a huge number of different styles most of which contradict each other. Show me how a real life lawyer would mount such an argument using the reasoning that gay marriage uses? You can't.
BTW, you are incorrect about a partnership. It terminates for all parties if a partner dies. If the 3 want to stay in a partnership they have to make a new one.
Why marriage is given a preferred status?
* I dropped traditional, non-traditional 'open marriages' or marriages with numerous affairs are given the same legal status as Ma and Pa Tradition.
1. You cited procreation and children having two parents. Marriage doesn't provide that, biology does. Plenty of readers here have unmarried parents, I doubt any of them do not have two biological parents.
2. But it provides for children? No the law does that. Go ahead and make a bunch of babies without getting married. You'll soon see your paycheck will not be safe due to your unmarried status. But money isn't everything? True but the law can't make you love or spend quality time with your kids whether or not you're legally married.
So why have marriage?
Primarily because it does a good job providing security for the people in a marriage. I recently took my father-in-law to a lawyer to see about the medical bills of his late wife, he is responsible for them. Why? Because a spouse is responsible for debts incurred by another spouse if he knew about them (like credit cards) or they are for necessary expenses (food, housing, medical care etc.). That isn't great news for him but it is a good general policy. Married people have to provide for each other. No if they are both poor then they both starve but at least we know that Donald Trump's wife isn't going to show up on the welfare line or be applying for charity care at the hospital.
What about kids?
It's a good deal for them either directly or indirectly. Directly if they have married parents. Indirectly if other people in the family are married. If, for example, grandma is married there's more chance that grandma can help mom and dad with the kid rather than mom and dad having to split their resources to care for a destitute family member. This goes for 'uncle Bob' as well.
The procreation story doesn't quite play out because:
1. There are plenty of marriages that are great procreation wise but we nonetheless frown upon. If grandpa divorces his 70 year old wife and marries a 20 year old gold digger, well that's a pretty good point for procreation but no one approves of it.
2. There are plenty of marriages that are horrible for procreation but make us feel good. When we hear about two 70 year olds who find themselves late in life and get married it's a touching story. We don't bash them for wasting time and money on a marriage that isn't going to make any babies.
smm
My point was that you seemed to acknowledge that the religious argument was the only valid argument you had seen so far in this thread.
It is but it's not quite the religious argument you think it is. It isn't "my religion doesn't permit gay marriage" it's "my religion requires me to demand society make gay marriage illegal". There's a huge difference between these two. It's one thing for a rabbi to say "don't eat pork" to his followers and quite a different for a rabbi to demand that pork be made illegal.
It's a valid argument only in the sense of I'm not going to tell someone that they don't know their own religion. If the rabbi thinks God demands he not only refrain from pork but advocate banning it, who am I to tell him he's wrong? But that's not sufficient for him to carry the argument.
Besides, you have your hands more than full trying to answer (or rather dodge answering)
Not really, next to evolution we've probably gone through these arguments more times than anything else here. His 'what is the purpose of marriage' is as much a rerun as Joe's original post.
Last I checked, gender was pretty much as immutable as race.
Sexual preference is not the same thing as gender. If it was the pedophiles could claim protection from gender discrimination based on their sexual preference.
Primarily because it does a good job providing security for the people in a marriage. I recently took my father-in-law to a lawyer to see about the medical bills of his late wife, he is responsible for them.
That doesn't provide security for the wife, it provides security for the hospital.
Your missing the point, I wasn't saying marriage was a business arrangement.
No, you are missing the point. Once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriage is is a business relationship. As such there is no reason to exclude any possible family combination. If two sisters or two brothers want to get married, what's to stop them? If two couples want to marry, who cares? All they are doing is entering into an arrangement to share resources and responsibilities. Actually it would probably be a good deal for government because now you have the possibility of multiple earners on the same tax return, tending to push the people into a higher tax bracket than they would be on their own.
Married people have to provide for each other.
Married people have a moral obligation to provide for each other, they don't necessarily have a legal obligation, certainly nothing like the legal obligation to provide for children.
ucfengr
Sexual preference is not the same thing as gender.
The law revolves around gender here, not sexual preference. No state has a law saying a gay man can't get married. The law says he can't marry a man.
That doesn't provide security for the wife, it provides security for the hospital.
Now don't be an idiot. Of course in that limited case the law didn't provide security for his wife since his wife had already died. The law, though, does provide for security for spouses. While she was alive she was able to collect on his social security, he had to provide for her with his income and if he failed to do so she could have asked a court to force him.
The hospital too is able to provide services to more people because it can require spouses who have income to pay the bills. Imagine what it would be like if every non-working spouse could claim poverty because while their husbands make ample income they themselves are unemployed so technically have nothing.
Once you separate marriage from procreation, then all marriage is is a business relationship. As such there is no reason to exclude any possible family combination. If two sisters or two brothers want to get married, what's to stop them?
The laws against incest (another area that would not be under strict scrutiny). That being said there's actually not much to stop them now. I mean legally they can't get married but even though there are probably some laws about adult incest on the books I don't think a lot of effort is spent on enforcing them and it wouldn't take a criminal mastermind to dodge them. The reasons sisters and brothers don't hook up that often is quite frankly because it is against human nature. You can try to say the same thing for gays except emperical evidence indicates otherwise.
But let's keep with your main thought:
Once you separate marriage from procreation,
Then why do we feel good about the two 70 year olds who fall in love and get married yet the 70 year old man who marries a 20 year old is looked at with scorn? Clearly the second has more procreative potential than the first. Likewise we don't expect or feel very good about older couples divorcing. You appear like you are trying to rewrite history to make marriage about the children when it is clearly not. If anything you are trying to make marriage into a business arrangement except instead of making profits it is supposed to make babies.
While this rewrite may help you to mount an argument against gay marriage it is not within any historical understanding humans have had of marriage. Need I remind you about Jesus's words about two becoming one? While he was certainly aware that in the vast majority of times marriages would produce children when he was talking about what it was he was talking about the two people entering marriage. Gotta walk before you can run, before you can think about having kids you should have a firm foundation....which is why conservatives advocate that children born in healthy marriages are better off than those who are not.
And here is the problem with your argument, gay marriage fits what you say you're trying to do. Gays who marry other gays are providing a more secure environment for themselves which means it is less likely they will become a burden on their families or society. If the rest of the family and society is less burdened in that area then that is all the more energy that can be devoted to children (making them or raising them). Having gays marry people of the opposite sex may in some cases make babies but it is only healthy if you view children the way a cattle farmer views cows. Such marriages will tend to be more unhealthy which is not good for any children they produce and even if they don't have kids is still a drain on the rest of their family & society.
Married people have a moral obligation to provide for each other, they don't necessarily have a legal obligation, certainly nothing like the legal obligation to provide for children.
You seem to be unaware of many marriage laws. Perhaps that is why people like Don can make silly arguments like gays just want marriage so they can 'stick it' to straight society while remaining promiscuous. If you are legally married to someone, you can be responsible for many (granted not all) of their debts. If you buy property you cannot keep them off the title unless they sign a waiver. If you refuse to share you income with your spouse you can have a court seize it and give it to her....and not just for things that are necessary like food, shelter and medicine but also for her to share proportionately in the lifestyle your income permits you to have. If you die you cannot will your property to anyone else, it must pass to your spouse if he or she is alive. If you are legally married to someone for ten years she will share your social security check when you retire.
You're very foolish if you think you can get married without opening yourself up to a huge obligation to provide for your spouse. Which is why very rich men like Donald Trump have lots of legal advice whenever they tie the knot.
Joe --
2 fabulous essays on this topic by a fellow named Sam Schulman:
Gay marriage -- and marriage
fin de ligne
Both are more than 5 years old, and they are still utterly insightful on what is happening here.
OK Joe, we get your point. Gay Men = Bad People.
But your logic then suggests that lesbian couples must be the ultimate in sanctified relationships, since their monogamy rate is higher than that of even heterosexuals.
You also overlook the fact that for the generations of men that your studies portray, marriage was never even a pipe dream.
How much would straight men be inclined to get married and be monogamous if there didn't exist cultural pressure to do so? The answer: Not Much.
You are basically condemning gay men for acting like single straight men.
And regarding this reference:
" Source: Pollack, M. " Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25. "
I'm not going to argue the merits or veracity of your other sources, but Nicolosi is a complete fraud. Do not use him as a reference unless you want to look like a looney-bin fool. And today you look very foolish indeed.
Perused fin de ligne:
Marriage between the two sexes, in pairs, exists not because of custom or a patriarchal or matriarchal conspiracy (though isn't it pretty to think so) -- but because through marriage -- and the generation it permits, the continuity of life that, imperfect as it is, only some form of marriage engenders-the world exists. Marriage is how we are connected backwards in time to our Creator (or, if you like, the primal soup), and how we are linked to our future.
Except the continuity of life is not created by marriage but by biology. Barring cloning or some other sci-fi invention, everyone reading this has and will have two biological parents of different sex. The core of Schulman's essay is a no-brainer; gays don't make babies. Lots of people don't make babies, that doesn't mean they cannot make a positive contribution to the 'continuity of life'. Even if that contribution is simply staying out of the way of those who are making babies. Likewise making babies by itself isn't all that great in terms of contributing to the 'continuity of life'. Many neglectful, immature, abusive parents would have done better for contunity if they had choosen to work harder on raising babies rather than making them. It ain't all that hard to make babies you know.
His first essay is a bit better.
First he tosses off the "may harm children" line. This entirely ignores & contradicts the fact that homosexual sex doesn't make children! Odd considering this is such a major point of his other essay. The only way for gay marriage to harm children is for kids created through heterosexual sex to end up being raised by gay couples. By definition, then, such cases come about only when heterosexual couples fail in their responsibility to raise the babies they make (as in the case of adoption, orphans or whatnot). Beyond that no one has articulated why a married gay couple would be worse for a kid than an unmarried gay couple. If you're making an argument against gay marriage, that is the question you have to address. I think many conservatives forget themselves and assume they are debating whether or not gay couples should raise kids which is a totally different question that is independent of the marriage one.
Second he makes a potent argument about the nature of marriage in the relationship between men and women but fails to 'close the deal'. Why is this nature government's concern to enforce rather than the rabbi's, priet's, minister's and other advisors? Also where is his 'transmission mechanism'? Essentially he says that a man in a gay marriage cannot have the same fulfillment as a woman in a straight marriage. That may or may not be true but so what? This would only be relevent if a man in a gay marriage somehow caused a woman in a traditional marriage to have something less than she is entitled too. How is that plausible?
He writes:
Because marriage is an arrangement built around female sexuality, because the institution has to do with women far more than it has to do with men, women will be the victims of its destruction.
But he then writes:
WHY SHOULD I not be able to marry a man? The question addresses a class of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but nonetheless cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a father to a pebble--I cannot be a brother to a puppy--I cannot make my horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a man. If I want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights by not permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean that it can be.
What's important about the second point is that it is physically impossible. If Joe said his brother was a puppy we would all laugh at him. If he insisted on sharing his money with the puppy as if it was really his brother we might worry a bit about his sanity. In the end, though, Joe is only making a fool of himself.
What if the law recognized the puppy as Joe's brother? At most the only harm I could see is maybe if Joe has a real brother he would end up sharing his inheritance (should Joe die first) with a puppy. The primary harm might be in letting Joe make a fool of himself but that harm happens to Joe by his own choice. The fact is, though, that if Joe started claiming a puppy was his brother no one's sense of reality would be much threatened.
But in the first point he pretends that marriage can be destroyed therefore we must be careful. However his description of marriage rests entirely inside human nature which is more or less immutable. Critics of legalized gay marriage have to make up their minds. On the one hand they seem to pretend marriage is a simple social construct so a host of unspecified harms can flow from changing its rules. On the other hand they tell us marriage is unchangeably part of human nature. If that is the case then the worst that can come from gay marriage is that some people may make fools of themselves.
My fellow Christians,
Let's not fool ourselves. "Gay Marriage" is not an attempt by people who prefer homosex to have all the same stuff as the rest of us. It may be that for some individuals here and there, but not for the movement as a whole.
Instead, this is another way for them to limit religious freedom in this country. To push us further and further outside the norm of society and put us all in an actual closet.
Just like the Catholic Church lost its right to practice its religion freely in Massachussettes when people who got married and practiced homosex demanded to receive children via adoption by Catholic charties, so too will they do that in California and every other state in the Union.
How dare us Christians try to follow two Christian principles simultaneously. Having nothing to do with sin (Homosex) and taking care of orphans and widows in their distress.
Just like they have used people who prefer homosex to try and do away with the boy scouts, they will use "gay marriage" as a club to beat up on Christians that dare to be seen in society.
Christians all over this nation, as "gay marriage" spreads will no longer be able to practice their religion freely as court after court will say that to deny a legally married couple that practices homosex is the highest sin in the land, discrimination!
Don't fool yourselves into thinking this cancer is benign. It will continue to spread throughout the United States until they can do away with all of the evil Christians trying to bring about Theocracy in the United States.
Let me say a few things here which Joe may or may not agree with, but are relevant to this topic:
[1] The commenter who quipped "Gay Men = Bad People" is operating from a point of view which implies that Joe (or Christians in general, perhaps) thinks that there's nothing worse than homosexuality. Let me say without any qualification that all sins are bad, so when we narrow the scope of any discussion from "all sins" to "one particular sin", we (me, Joe, Christians with more than 4 brain cells) are not saying "and this sin is worst of all". We are saying "since this is the sin in question, let's look at it in particular".
[2] For those who would share the view that Joe has somehow besmirched Gay Men, I offer this: all people are bad people. Seriously: I'm not any more morally-righteous than anyone else. The problem which the Christian faith deals with is, "What can be done about a race of creatures who are all bad?" If you have a Christian faith which makes you somehow a more moral than anyone else (let alone everyone else), it's time for you to sell everything you own, take up your cross, and follow Christ to His death at the hands of the religious rulers of Jerusalem.
[3] After we receive the fact of our problem, we have to wonder what the solution to our problem must be. And is the solution (if we are bad) "Let's make sure we can do everything we want to do?" Or must the solution be something that does not come from us but instead comes from someplace else -- like from God, for example.
If the answer is that there's an external solution to our problems, we can talk about why Gay Marriage is a bad idea. If the solution is that bad people just have to work harder in spite of their badness, I think that gay marriage is the least of our problems.
Baggi
"Homosex"? What, did your elementary school teacher let you have extra time on the computer today?
Boonton,
They give us laptops on the shortbus now.
Then why do we feel good about the two 70 year olds who fall in love and get married yet the 70 year old man who marries a 20 year old is looked at with scorn?
I don't give much thought to either case.
You appear like you are trying to rewrite history to make marriage about the children when it is clearly not.
My God, I see the light. Marriage has never been about children, it has always been about getting government and government mandated benefits, and making sure the hospital gets paid when you die. Given that, I am really not sure why you can or would want to exclude incestuous relationships, polygamous or even group relationships from this marvelous institution.
For a Christian the point is clear.
The government should not provide benefits and incentives to reward sin.
The non-Christian should consider an analogous situation where the government provided benefits and incentives to people who smoked.
"Instead, this is another way for them to limit religious freedom in this country."
So a gay couple getting married limits your religious freedom? How?
That is ridiculous.
Baggi, Thanks for clearing things up. I suppose you are right-teh gays don't want marry, they want to outlaw christianity (that's the "gay agenda"). I was just confused when I thought maybe the whole gay marriage thing was just some sort of divisive diversion from other things Jesus Christ might be concerned about such as the hunger, war, and materialism afflicting out planet. Thanks for clearing things up.
it has always been about getting government and government mandated benefits, and making sure the hospital gets paid when you die.
The example illustrates, it doesn't restrict. Paying the hospital is simply a modern version of an older principle. I don't think you're having as much trouble understanding this point that as you are pretending. If it is really confusing you why don't you refer to traditional marriage vows which refer not to children but to having and holding your partner for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health etc.
I am happy to see you've dropped your assertion that married people have no legal obligations to support their spouses.
Given that, I am really not sure why you can or would want to exclude incestuous relationships, polygamous or even group relationships from this marvelous institution.
There's two angles to that point.
The first is if the law includes gay marriages why not all the other types. I think we've exhausted that topic several times over now. Strict scrutiny doesn't apply to numbers, doesn't apply to family relations etc.
The second argument is policy bsed. There may be no right to polygamy but one is free to advocate it as a good policy. You could do the same with incest, but as I pointed out incest among consenting adults is already de facto legal but it is almost entirely unheard of.
The problem, though, is that you actually have to make the argument....simply saying if X then why not W,Y and Z will not do (in essence the slippery slope fallacy...it's like saying if we have unemployment insurance why not full blown gov't ownership of all major industry...one doesn't follow from the other).
If you want me to provide a short list of arguments why, here are some:
* The Kids - Basically all the arguments that the Rabbi made in the articles Frank Turk cited. Gay marriages do not produce kids and even if you include adoption, kids from previous heterosexual relationships and possible sci-fi advances (cloning, asexual reproduction etc.) you're talking about a tiny minority of marriages. Adopting polygamy or incest based marriages will include many, many marriages with children & then you have to make some effort to project what would be the impact. I'm not saying it would have to be bad, other societies have done polygamy but you'd have to show how applying it to our society would be good...or at least non-harmful.
* Minor versus radical change - Like it or not gay marriage is a minor social change. We are talking about maybe 5% of the population and even assuming a huge portion of them opt for marriage at the end of the day you're probably going to be talking about 3% of all marriages at best. On the other hand polygamy, incest etc. are radical changes that would impact just about every marriage. Take incest, for example, if fathers could marry their daughters then every marriage where there is a daughter suddenly has the potential for the mother to find herself in competition with her daughter. If you suddenly adopted polygamy every marriage that already exists would be altered since now the husband (or wife) suddenly has the option to add more people...
You could try to argue gay marriage would alter existing marriages but not really. Married persons who suddenly want to be married to someone of the same sex would still have to end their current marriages. The recent experience NJ had with its governor aside, I'm skeptical that any significant portion of heterosexual marriages are held together because one or more partners can't legally be in a gay marriage. Those that are are unlikely to be the healthiest examples of traditional marriage.
* Complexity - One of the benefits of marriage is the stability it provides both parties. If you get laid off your wife's job may help you out before you have to ask the rest of us for a handout and vice versa. In theory if you add more people to the marriage you can increase stability. In a 3 person marriage, for example, even two people suffering misfortune may be balanced out by the third for a time. But as you add more people arithmatically you increase complexity geometrically. Two people have two relationships by my count(husband to wife, wife to husband), three people have 6 (person 1 to 2&3, person 2 to 1&3, person 3 to 1&2), and four people 12 (1 to 2,3,4, 2 to 1,3,4, 3 to 1,2,4, 4 to 1,2,3). More relationships undercuts the stability benefit. It provides more oppotunities for disagreements, fights and so on. It also means that the emotional bonds that form the stability are spread over more people which further undercuts the benefit.
Polygamist societies has created some structures to compensate. Muslims limit the wives to four at most and require equality between them. Mormons have an unofficial position of 'first wife' and allow women in the marriage to have some measure of 'senority' in exchange for sharing their husbands with an additional woman. Many of these, though, conflict with other values we have. Strict gender roles, for example, do not seem to work in modern cultures.
People are and should be free to experiment as they would. If you have evidence that some off beat hippie or Mormon cult has created a working system of group marriage that would be beneficial to adopt in a developed country, please feel free to present it.
econ grad student
For a Christian the point is clear.
The government should not provide benefits and incentives to reward sin.
Why? Avoiding sin to score a tax break or subsidy should not impress a Christian. Avoiding sin because one sincerely accepts Chrsitianity and attempts to live it is desirable, but that is accomplished by direct one-to-one relationship between the convert and the Christian. That isn't accomplished en mass by jiggling 'incentives' around for all of society.
The non-Christian should consider an analogous situation where the government provided benefits and incentives to people who smoked.
Many non-smokers have started to see that the min-war being waged on smokers is less and less justified by any fair measure of the 'harm' they are supposedly doing to non-smokers or taxpayers.
Boonton, I'm not sure if you're intentionally twisting what I wrote or if you didn't understand me.
Offering benefits to encourage people to sin is wrong from a Christian perspective. It's called "temptation". For example when the Devil offered Christ the whole world if he'd bow down and worship him.
You picked up a different issue about a government that decides to discourage sin. We actually face a government (in California) that will pay benefits to encourage people to sin. That's a pretty clear Satanic activity.
Thank you Baggi for your comment on May 22 and
Econ grad student for your comments on May 24 and May 25.
The Scriptures (the Bible) are God's revealed revelation and when the great moral truths of Scripture are rejected in rebellion or neglect,
not only individuals but entire cultures suffer.
Ultimately that which is wrong, perverse, evil,
persecutes and attempts to destroy both good and those who practice and promote good.
The sacrifice of children (with abortion even being considered as a pagan like sacrament in some trendy circles today)and the indulgence and perversion of lust (which has contributed to widespread acceptance of fornication and serial divorce among "straights". And now homosexual practice and, in some chic circles, ever inceasing acceptance of pedophilia is reminiscent of destructive and dying cultures of the past.
People, including professing religous people, seem perversely bent upon twisted sophisticated
reasoning and arguments to excuse, defend or promote that which is clearly unnatural, perverse, evil. In an attempt to satisfy and serve personal desires, lusts and eogos we have a nation of individuals that are ultimately losing their own souls and destroying the nation as well. In a self centered attempt to pursue life according to our own wants and wills we bring death (both in this life and eternally) to ourselves and to others.
Thank you Baggi for your comment on May 22 and
Econ grad student for your comments on May 24 and May 25.
The Scriptures (the Bible) are God's revealed revelation and when the great moral truths of Scripture are rejected in rebellion or neglect,
not only individuals but entire cultures suffer.
Ultimately that which is wrong, perverse, evil,
persecutes and attempts to destroy both good and those who practice and promote good.
The sacrifice of children (with abortion even being considered as a pagan like sacrament in some trendy circles today)and the indulgence and perversion of lust (which has contributed to widespread acceptance of fornication and serial divorce among "straights". And now homosexual practice and, in some chic circles, ever inceasing acceptance of pedophilia is reminiscent of destructive and dying cultures of the past.
People, including professing religous people, seem perversely bent upon twisted sophisticated
reasoning and arguments to excuse, defend or promote that which is clearly unnatural, perverse, evil. In an attempt to satisfy and serve personal desires, lusts and eogos we have a nation of individuals that are ultimately losing their own souls and destroying the nation as well. In a self centered attempt to pursue life according to our own wants and wills we bring death (both in this life and eternally) to ourselves and to others.
econ
Offering benefits to encourage people to sin is wrong from a Christian perspective. It's called "temptation". For example when the Devil offered Christ the whole world if he'd bow down and worship him.
I'm not clear, though, what incentive you're talking about here. I don't think many straight people will want to jump onboard a gay marriage. Likewise, people who are gay are pretty much free to be as gay as they please today without gay marriage. If anything the incentive here runs against gay promiscuity. I'm not sure a Christian would say a monogamous gay person is less sinful than a promiscuous gay person but it would seem to be better.
You picked up a different issue about a government that decides to discourage sin. We actually face a government (in California) that will pay benefits to encourage people to sin. ...
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, could you please be a bit more specific?
In same-sex marriage, government is rewarding two people to be in a sinful relationship. The rewards are social, monetary and status.
Whether people would choose to sin anyway is irrelevant. The government is rewarding an act of evil.
You're saying the equivalent of this.
"Well we've got individuals who are going to sin with a lot of people, so the government should pay them to sin against themselves and another person."
I don't support the government paying pedophiles money to just molest one child instead of 50. While we don't have that violence in homosexual sin, it is still sin and falls under the same principle.
Last time I checked, there was no gov't money reward for getting married. Yes there may be some tax benefits (although not always), that's not a primary reason people get married.
What you're really saying is that gov'ts purpose here is to regulate sin by using its ability to set up a system of incentives and deterrents. This theocratic idea has long been rejected by Western culture except in cases of what we can call 'secular sin'....basically things we all can agree should be illegal regardless of religious beliefs (like molesting kids).
I'll ask you who is being deterred from sin by not having gay marriage? Unlike ucfengr's question about incest and polygamy, this is an area that is well insulated from traditional marriages. Few people would utilize gay marriage who aren't already gay and those who aren't, if they are living inside of traditional marriages, are probably not in very healthy marriages (see NJ's ex-gov McGreevy)
At this point I have to make one of two conclusions.
Either you're incapable/unwilling to understand what I write, or I'm incapable of communicating it.
The main benefit of marriage is a social and societal acceptance of a relationship as legitimate.
You return to a secular viewpoint but Christians aren't held accountable to the Prince of this World (the Devil), they are accountable to God.
By legitimizing a sinful and evil activity you're encouraging people who are already tempted to succumb to temptation. You're stacking the deck in favor of sin.
Using the government to legitimize and sanction sin is a Satanic activity. By doing this a government sets itself up as a (pitiful) rival and (pathetic) enemy to God.
I suspect your misunderstanding is based on a belief that marriage is primarily about romantic love. That's a non-essential for marriage. My grandparents were in an arranged marriage.
Boonton, it is getting annoying when I first have to correct your misunderstanding/twisting of what I write. If you can't get it this time I'll retire on the assumption I'm not able to communicate with you.
econ
The main benefit of marriage is a social and societal acceptance of a relationship as legitimate.
Is it always? First it is not unheard of for some marriages not to be socially accepted. Catholics do not, for example, accept the new marriages that divorced people have even though they are legally no different than any other marriage. The 70 year old man who marries a 20 year old is often not accepted as a legit. marriage even though it technically violates no rule of either church or state.
I would say that there's often an overlap of "social acceptance" and marriage but it's not perfect & I'm not sure that legality must equal social approval.
By legitimizing a sinful and evil activity you're encouraging people who are already tempted to succumb to temptation. You're stacking the deck in favor of sin.
Who? You keep dodging this question. People who are already gay are by your definition already in sin. People who aren't gay are not going to utilize gay marriage. Who is in this group of people who are being tempted then? People who are currently celibrate gays?
I suspect your misunderstanding is based on a belief that marriage is primarily about romantic love. That's a non-essential for marriage. My grandparents were in an arranged marriage.
Not what I said, I said marriage is primarily about the security of the people entering it. This includes romantic love, even arranged marriages were hoped to result in love, but it doesn't mean that all healthy marriages were soaking in romantic love anymore than financial security means that no marriages ever suffered from poverty.
I've never said people who are "gay" (I assume you mean homosexual?) are already in sin.
Individuals who choose to commit sodomy or lewd acts are sinning.
You assume that the government ought to encourage greater sins because some may already be sinning in smaller ways.
I suppose you think a man who's struck an enemy may as well go on and kill him since he's already sinned?
As a Christian your perspective has a through the looking glass quality. You expect me to support the government aligning itself to Satan for what reason?
Why would you assume the existence of gay marriage would make people more gay (and yes I'm using gay in the modern sense of meaning homosexual)?
Are you saying there's some significant population of celibrate gays who are waiting for gay marriage to be legalized before they do anything gay?
Also....
1. I'm not sure how you compare sins (one person sinning 'in a small way' versus one person sinning in a big way) or how you figure that it is gov'ts duty to do so. For example, compare a monogamous gay man to a character like Larry Craig who once or twice every month or so engages in an extramarital 'quickie' behind is wife's back.
As far as marriage law goes the first guy is out but Craig is in with what you call society's seal of approval. But as far as sin goes it is hardly clear that Craig is less of a sinner. And I'm not using any liberal Christian theological yardstick here. Even under very orthodox Christianity the Craig character is not only sinning as much as the first guy but he has added to his sin by betraying his wife, putting innocent people in danger, etc. etc.