Recently, I posted a number of posts about California Proposition 8. This is an emotionally charged issue with good thoughts on both sides. Not surprisingly, my posts sparked debate in the comment sections where a number of excellent questions were raised. Richard Hollis is one commentator who raised especially thoughtful questions. As a result of the questions raised, especially by Richard, I have decided to write my thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage from the ground up and have asked Richard to respond. Below is my essay followed by Richard's response. Please note, when I sent Richard my essay, I had not yet added links to my sources. Richard and readers of Evangelical Outpost - thank you for your thoughtful read and consideration of this post. - Dustin Steeve.
The upcoming proposition amending the constitution in the state of California to affirm marriage gives us opportunity to pause and reflect. Since 1970, marriage has endured a series of devastating attacks. In January 1970 the Family Law Act was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan and "no-fault divorce" was written into law. Reagan would later cite this as one of his greatest regrets. The intent of the law was to help Californians separate amicably without having to contrive reasons for obtaining a divorce. As the explosive increase in divorces since 1970 attests, the effect of the law was that it hurt marriage.
Presently, proposition 8 is giving Californians a rare opportunity to stop further tampering of marriage through law. As we consider the proposition, reason, empirical evidence, and morality ought to inform us. Each of these has led me to the decision to affirm marriage by voting yes on proposition 8.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of society. That phrase is often used but seldom explained. When I say "fundamental building block of society" I am referring to marriage's natural creation of families. Families build societies through the natural birthing and rearing of children. Without children, societies cease to exist. Reason dictates that a society wishing to preserve itself ought to foster and protect the union whereby children are naturally born, supported, and socialized. For marriages where child birth is not possible, married couples have the option to adopt children who do not have the protection and support of their biological parents. Current laws support this natural and healthy system. Allowing same-sex couples to become a normal part of this system is unhealthy and unwise for the following reasons.
According to A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, "There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father." Psychological evidence shows that children have needs which are met uniquely by parents of opposite gender. From the way mothers and fathers uniquely hold children, to the way they uniquely play with children or discipline children, a child's need for love, support, and personal well-being are met uniquely by parents of the opposite gender. By definition, same-sex couples cannot meet these unique needs. Furthermore, no reputable psychological theory or empirical study denies the importance of mothers in a child's development. Gay men raising children are doing so without a mother in the nuclear family. Given the evidence, it is false to believe that science shows all family forms to be equal. Out of love for our children and for our fellow citizen, we ought not to solidify this false belief by writing into law and teaching it to our children.
If we chose to ignore the number of needs a same-sex couple by definition cannot provide to the state or to the life of children, the same-sex culture still has elements of great concern which we ought to consider before we introduce these elements into marriage. Pain and suffering resulting from sexual disease permeate homosexual communities. According to ex-gay speaker Mike Haley, the odds of a straight man contracting AIDS after one heterosexual encounter are 1 in 165,000 as opposed to 1 in 175 for gay men after one homosexual encounter. These tragic statistics on HIV/AIDS seem to be confirmed by the Center for Disease Control estimates on HIV prevalence. Multiple differences in lifestyles account for this including the greater likelihood of drug use among gay men as well as a higher average sexual partner rate. Domestic abuse occurs much more frequently within the homosexual community more than within heterosexual relationships. 78% of lesbians have reported domestic abuse related problems. Gay and bisexual men experience violence at a rate of 2 to 5. In addition to the problems of disease and violence, the homosexual community has a concept of "commitment" that is very different from marital commitment. Currently, monogamy is the norm and is socially expected among married couples. Only 25% of heterosexual men and 15% of heterosexual women report sexual infidelity; 17% of marriages end in divorce as a result of infidelity. However, within the homosexual community, infidelity is the norm. Recent studies show that 95.6% of gay men report infidelity in their current relationship. Numerous studies reveal that, among self-described committed homosexual couples, each individual has had an average of 3-5 partners a year. Apparently, marriage can get worse.
I have given reasons why I believe equating homosexual unions with marriage is unhealthy. Upon these grounds, I believe a rational decision can be made. However, before I go further in the argument, I want to be clear on the following point: anyone who suggests you keep your morality out of the marriage question is making a dangerous proposition. Laws are filled with moral presuppositions and prescriptions. Though law and morality are not the same, laws are written by people and every person follows a moral compass. At its core, the decision to affirm marriage is a moral matter.
The decision to allow homosexuals to marry is a moral matter because at the core of homosexual marriage is homosexuality. Your answer to the question of whether homosexuality is moral is going to determine your view of whether homosexual marriage should be accepted. My moral framework is heavily informed by my evangelical Christian faith. I believe the Lord clearly speaks against homosexuality through scripture. I recognize that the claim is controversial and worthy of its own post, but for the sake of brevity, I cite I Corinthians 6: 9-11 as evidence. I believe an appropriate Christian response to homosexuality is one which recognizes that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, its holiness. Christians ought to respond to homosexuality as they ought to respond to all other sins: pursuing holiness and lovingly calling others to pursue holiness likewise.
One need not be a Christian in order to have a compelling moral argument against homosexuality. For example, you might be Aristotelian. If so, you might consider the anatomical design of men and women and conclude that homosexual sex is against the proper function of humans. Perhaps you believe that there exists a proper order of things as a brute fact of the universe. Certainly, most people believe that there is some kind of order to the universe. If you hold the universe to be ordered, then you might look at the numerous physiological complications resulting from gay sex, such as the need for colostomies, and conclude that the activity is disordered and therefore not good. These are just a few of the many moral frameworks from which arguments against homosexuality can be levied. Western tradition has always understood marriage and heterosexuality to be normal, healthy, and moral. Advocates for homosexual marriage claim that homosexual marriage is equally normal, healthy, and moral. Just as in formal debate the burden of proof rests on those presenting challenge to the status quo, so the burden of proof rests on the advocates of homosexual marriage to prove its morality.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of our society. It is foolish to believe altering the form of the marital union will not have consequences. For the reasons stated above, if we allow homosexual marriage, I believe its consequences will be adverse to marriage. Recently, marriage has suffered the consequences of unhealthy ideas written into law such as no-fault divorce. Now we can put a stop to that trend. I hope that you will apply reason to an examination of the evidence, that you will allow your moral framework to play a role in your decision. I believe that I have done so and have come to the conclusion that it is my responsibility, morally and for reasons pertaining to the health of my society, to vote yes on proposition 8 and affirm marriage.
by Dustin Steeve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your essay begins by talking about the 'devastating attacks' that have been waged against marriage since 1970, citing no-fault divorce as an example. The impression it seems to convey is that marriage is a sacred institution that has stood immovable and implacable for eons, but now recently faces threat. This is something of a fallacy.
The Bible itself (a popular reference point for those who traditionally oppose same-sex marriage) shows us that different attitudes to marriage have been in vogue in different times. The Israelite patriarch Jacob, for example, married both Rachel and Leah, daughters of Laban.
"And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also." -Genesis 29:28
Jacob ended up with four wives, and was far from the only polygamist in the Bible. Others include Gideon (Judges 8:30), Elkanah, father of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1:2), and kings such as Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:21), Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21), and Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:3). Most famously, Solomon himself had "seven hundred wives... and three hundred concubines" (2 Kings 11:3). None of these royal polygamists were chastised or punished by God for this - except for Solomon, but even here the exception proves the rule. According to the Bible, Solomon's sin was not that he married many wives, but that he married foreign wives who turned him away from worshipping Yahweh (11:4).
Of course, these were times when women were considered merely property, and the New Testament moves much closer to our traditional 'one-man-one-woman' view of marriage (though it never actually condemns the polygamists of the Old Testament). But it does show that the concept of marriage has changed, and is culturally specific, rather than an institution with clear rules handed down by God and thriving unchanged throughout human history since Creation.
For an example closer to our time, consider interracial marriage. In 1967, Mildred Loving and her husband Richard, an interracial couple, were arrested at their Virginia home for violating that state's anti-miscegenation law. The couple pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to a year in prison. The appeal went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which lead to an end to bans on interracial marriage. Today the fight to end the ban on same-sex marriage mirrors the one to end the ban on interracial marriage. Gay couples, just like mixed race couples, seek exactly the same thing: to be allowed to marry the ones they love. It is a parallel which many supporters of the ban find uncomfortable, since racism these days is so widely regarded as bigoted and unacceptable. Homophobia, unfortunately, is less so.
Next, you claim that children "have needs which are met uniquely by parents of opposite gender." I am sorry that, being a draft essay, there is no link for me to follow, but let me cite the following for examples of many, many studies which show insignificant or no detrimental affects on children having been raised by same-sex couples. If the sources you cite turn out to be valid, we can only conclude that the results from research and studies are, at best, mixed.
It is also worth considering the sort of people that society does allow to marry and procreate. Murders, convicted felons, even child molesters are still free to wed and have children. They do not lose these rights through their actions. In the eyes of the law, they are still considered capable of loving another person and their own children, while homosexuals are not. This should be obviously ridiculous to anyone who has ever met a single homosexual. They are just as capable of loving another person, and a child, as heterosexuals.
But that is rather beside the point, because when discussing whether a same-sex marriage is a healthy environment in which to raise a child, you are really talking about gay adoption and parenting. This is an entirely new argument (though one in which I'd be happy to participate). Even if it were shown that a same-sex household was not a suitable environment in which to raise a child (and I am not agreeing with that statement at all), then that would still not be have any relevance on whether we should allow gay people the right to be joined in matrimony to their partner. Unlike the case of interracial marriage where children are generally an inevitable consequence of marriage, for same-sex couples they obviously are not.
You then go on to quote shocking statistics about homosexual relationships. I have to be honest, but when I read them I laughed. This is exactly the kind of homophobic nonsense which simply does not stand up to real-world experience of homosexuals. "78% of lesbian relationships are riddled with domestic abuse... Only 25% of heterosexual men and 15% of heterosexual women report sexual infidelity... 95.6% of gay men report infidelity in their current relationship." Again, I only wish I had the links available to me to read up on these studies, but as it is I simply do not believe they are accurate or reliable. The implications are clear: homosexuals are dirty and diseased, totally unable to control their lusts and their relationships are all dysfunctional. In actual fact, you only need to spend a little time on the gay scene to realise that homosexuals are people, just like heterosexuals. Relationships are just as complicated and complex as they are for heterosexuals. Perhaps homosexuals are a little more inclined to promiscuity (though I find the statistics you quote grossly exaggerated), but -and this is the point- you still find love between homosexuals. Plutonic love, fraternal love, but also deep, caring, romantic love. And the fact is that these couples cannot marry.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in several countries for years, so we can, to a limited degree, measure the effects of same-sex marriage. Denmark, for example, legalised it in 1989. The results from this 'long-running experiment' have been uniformly positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic - a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays.
But again, this rather misses the point. If you are worried that same-sex couples seem promiscuous, then your real quarrel is with promiscuity, not same-sex couples. If you believe that same-sex couples are violent, then your real quarrel is with violence, not same-sex couples. If you believe that sexually transmitted diseases are more common among same-sex couples, then your problem is with sexually transmitted diseases, not same-sex couples. To refuse marriage to all same-sex couples on these grounds is simply to be a bigot and tar all homosexuals with the same brush.
You then go on to talk about laws being rooted in morality. This I do agree with. Laws are entirely human constructs, and we make and revise them as we see fit. We do look to our own moral compasses to guide us in deciding what activities should be criminalised in our societies, and which should not.
However, you then state that your own morality is rooted in your religion, and that you object to homosexuality itself for religious reasons. This, of course, is your choice. You may base your beliefs on whatever you wish, and I don't doubt that religion is a popular choice for many people. But when your religious beliefs lead you to actively support a ban which has deep and fundamental consequences on other people, you are effectively enforcing your own religious beliefs onto other people. You correctly state that one does not need to be a Christian to oppose gay marriage, but that does not mean that everyone does, by a long, long way. Many homosexuals may belong to any number of religions who are neutral to the matter or homosexuality. Many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate homosexual relationships. In reality it is their religious freedom which is being infringed. The state should not be trying to enforce a religion on its citizens, which is essentially what is happening if same-sex couples are forbidden to marry for religious reasons. Anyone who believes in genuine religious freedom cannot oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of their own personal religious beliefs.
"Just as in formal debate the burden of proof rests on those presenting challenge to the status quo, so the burden of proof rests on the advocates of homosexual marriage to prove its morality."
This, I am afraid is simply not true. The burden of proof is not on anyone challenging the status quo. Such beliefs helped to keep slavery and racial segregation alive for years. To quote from Wikipedia: "Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty (in a criminal case) or liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations; a person is not required to prove his or her own innocence, it is rebuttably presumed." In the case of homosexuality, the burden is on 'they who complain', i.e., the people who object to it. Just as we should assume arrested men are innocent until shown guilty. We should also assume homosexuality is morally 'innocent' until shown otherwise. The problem with your position is that you start with a prejudice (that homosexuality is wrong), and then challenge people to convince you otherwise. This is back to front. Can you see the problem if I stated that I think all black people are immoral and then challenged people to prove me wrong (just to be clear, I don't actually think that)?
To conclude, allowing same-sex couples to marry will not bring about the destruction of marriage, families and society in general. All homosexuals are asking for is the right to be united with their loved ones, and to have that union recognised for what it is: in every aspect, just as moral, loving, legitimate and worthy of respect as those undertaken by heterosexuals. By what right do we deny them this?
By Richard Hollis
You state that "at the core of homosexual marriage is homosexuality...[and] whether homosexuality is moral"
If this is really the core issue, then why all the subterfuge over marriage? Why not criminalize homosexuality?
For if you cannot justify criminalizing homosexuality, its seems to me that you cannot make a good argument against banning gay marriage.
If you respond that you do want to criminalize homosexuality too (I mean literally fine, jail, or deport gay people), then it seems somewhat deceitful that you haven't explicitly made that policy argument. It prompts questions about a "secret agenda" or "slippery slope"....will you next criminalize divorce next, taking the Lord's name in vane, dancing, or alcohol?
We are all sinners. After the "pure Christians" finish with the gays, will they come for me next?
Recent studies show that 95.6% of gay men report infidelity in their current relationship. Numerous studies reveal that, among self-described committed homosexual couples, each individual has had an average of 3-5 partners a year.
Dustin,
If you are morally opposed to the idea of gay people being promiscuous, why do you not support proposals to give them a legal incentive toward monogamy?
". . . the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, its holiness."
So what's the opposite of heterosexuality?
And again, if "the core of homosexual marriage is homosexuality," what is at "the core" of heterosexual marriage?
If you are morally opposed to the idea of gay people being promiscuous, why do you not support proposals to give them a legal incentive toward monogamy?
Are saying gays need to be bribed to be monogamous? Loving each other and being in a committed relationship isn't enough? You've got to get goodies from the state? Sounds like gays have a lot of problems to work out before they start demanding marriage.
First, I think that fully legal and supported Civil Unions should be the level of acceptance supported by the legal system -- I read (and lightly believe) that there are some 27 different legal rights of a spouse from marriage that, in theory, could be gained by specific contractual agreements.
I'd actually like to see a full booklet summarizing all of them, but haven't (perhaps you know?).
Marriage is for children. In a very real, genetic based way, every child is a marriage of half of each parent's DNA -- the mother's ovum DNA is married to the father's sperm DNA.
(a bond no one can sunder.)
How many gov't benefits / lower taxes or credits, etc., should be granted to parents is one of the particular issues somewhat outside of 'gay marriage'. I think the non-gov't benefits of marriage are so great that no additional benefits are needed, until very expensive children are born -- and it is in the raising of children that gov't cash benefits should be focused.
All homosexuals are asking for is the right to be united with their loved ones, and to have that union recognised for what it is: in every aspect, just as moral, loving, legitimate and worthy of respect as those undertaken by heterosexuals. By what right do we deny them this?
Because promiscuity is immoral, and there's a much higher probability of promiscuity among gays than among married straights, I don't consider them 'equal'.
Drunk driving is a better comparison than inter-racial marriage. Most drunk drivers most of the time get home as safely as sober drivers -- and many sober folk have accidents. Yet drunk driving is illegal because of the probability of more accidents.
I don't consider any unmarried lovers as 'respect worthy' as married lovers, because of the commitment to fidelity promise; gays asking for marriage are not even uniform in agreement on whether fidelity should be part of their marriage agreement.
Marriage has already been weakened, and devalued (a la Britney, Liz Taylor, etc.); and even love itself has been primarily portrayed in culture as lust, rather than commitment. Gay marriage rather than civil unions weakens it further.
Finally, homosexual behavior is sinful in Christian theology. Part of the gay marriage push to 'equal morality' is to make it illegal to claim that gay sex is sinful. (See Europe)
I'm a sinner, too. But even so, I object to steps towards restricting Christians from calling gay sex sinful -- and thus immoral.
Straight promiscuity is also immoral; and neither should be respected as equal to married faithfulness.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of society. That phrase is often used but seldom explained. When I say "fundamental building block of society" I am referring to marriage's natural creation of families.
Agreed but I think you would then also agree that it is all the more important not to exclude members of society from marriage unless there is a very good reason. In addition, you miss the trees from the forest. A family is not just a baby or child but many people. Marriage, when it works well, provides for stability for all family members. This is good for a baby but it is also good for everyone else, such as the elderly or even the single person who is alone.
According to A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, "There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father."
OK but what does this have to do with gay marriage? By definition the only way for a gay couple to be raising a kid is if this above ideal has broken down somehow.
According to ex-gay speaker Mike Haley, the odds of a straight man contracting AIDS after one heterosexual encounter are 1 in 165,000 as opposed to 1 in 175 for gay men after one homosexual encounter.
That's a good point in favor for gay marriage, as for the other statistics:
I have given reasons why I believe equating homosexual unions with marriage is unhealthy. Upon these grounds, I believe a rational decision can be made.
Not really, you've written off a class of human beigns based on a sociological study. Give me an Excel sheet with enough data and I'll find you plenty of niches among heterosexuals that replicate the 'problems' you've shown. For example, if I demonstrated that marriages of 35+ yr old women to men between 19-24 have incidents of cheating and STDs equal or greater than the ones you cited for gays would you prohibit the recognition of such marriages? How many other members of your cohort would it take to screw up marriage so much that you'd give up your wife? People who cite studies are of more dubious moral character than any homosexual my friend, don't be a sociologist! Tread very carefully!
The decision to allow homosexuals to marry is a moral matter because at the core of homosexual marriage is homosexuality. Your answer to the question of whether homosexuality is moral is going to determine your view of whether homosexual marriage should be accepted. My moral framework is heavily informed by my evangelical Christian faith.
1. Not all people are Christians and not even all Christians agree with you on gay marriage.
2. The purpose of the state is not to enshrine Christian morality and it isn't to 'teach' morality. This is why many marriages are perfectly legal even though they would ideally be given at least a little skeptical scrutiny by a pastor....more about that below...
Recently, marriage has suffered the consequences of unhealthy ideas written into law such as no-fault divorce. Now we can put a stop to that trend.
Why don't you show us how keeping the gay couple down the street from being able to have a legal marriage stops you from being a good father to your children or a good husband to your wife...or at least would facilitate you becoming a better one? If you can't do that then why not 'put a stop to that trend' by, say, actually putting a stop to the trend and put your eggs in rewriting divorce laws. A cynic might say here you are rallying the troops behind feeling good by attacking a minority group you people do not like, do not associate with and would like to scapegoat for your own miserable failings.
As a matter of fact, why not go only as far as the Catholic Church and refuse to recognize divorced people who have remarried except under circumstances where an application for annullment has been vetted and granted? Why not castigate the failure of your VP candidate to properly raise her daughter and stop celebrating the impending marriage that...study wise....is likely to be yet another failed marriage? Timber in thine own eye indeed.
ucfengr
Are saying gays need to be bribed to be monogamous? Loving each other and being in a committed relationship isn't enough?
Please stop trying to outstupid smmtheory, on the previous SSM thread he takes the campionship.
On the off chance you're serious I wouldn't say marriage is a 'bribe' to be monogamous but more of a challenge that has both positive and negative reinforcement. Even with no-fault divorce and adultry no longer being a major cause for 'punishment' in divorce hearings you're playing with fire if you get married without an intention to at least try to be monogamous. Your partner can screw you over (pardon the pun) in lots of ways both legal and emotional. (For an interesting take on how marriage has a dark side that can, in some ways, be good see the response this advice columnist gave here:http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/08/22/laughter_in_the_dark/ really read it, it was one of the most interesting takes I've ever read although it's not directly tied to gay marriage at all)
ucfengr
Loving each other and being in a committed relationship isn't enough?
NOTE: All the moms and dads with teen kids thinking of moving in with their girlfriends or boyfriends might want to take note of this phrase from ucfengr. Take the internet filter off the p orn & block out ucfengr's writing least you want some of his words thrown at you!
Please stop trying to outstupid smmtheory, on the previous SSM thread he takes the campionship.
Perhaps you should get over yourself, Boonton. You're really not smart enough to call other people stupid so freely.
On the off chance you're serious I wouldn't say marriage is a 'bribe
That's great, but you weren't the one I was responding to. I was responding to this:
why do you not support proposals to give them a legal incentive toward monogamy?
Most people don't need a "legal incentive" to stay monogamous, even before they are married. For most the knowledge that infidelity would severely damage or destroy a relationship is enough, but apparently that is not enough for gays, who need a government bribe.
Richard Hollis wrote:
Again, I only wish I had the links available to me to read up on these studies, but as it is I simply do not believe they are accurate or reliable.
I'm not sure I understand this objection, since there were ample links to the statistic sources and the studies to which Dustin referred. Perhaps you object to the fact that some of these sources are not downloadable for free? Or is it that they are hosted on sites like Family Research Council (www.frc.org) to which you do not wish to contribute? Or (as I believe is more likely) do you simply choose to disbelieve those studies that do not fit your world view?
Don't misunderstand me: I frankly think Prop 8 is the wrong solution to the "problem", if "gay marriage" is a problem. I would rather that government, at all levels, have nothing to say at all about marriage. That which government controls will likely be controlled in a manner I do not approve.
Marriage is a great example of this principle. I believe it to be a sacred covenant, which should be sanctioned by the church and society, and entered (or dissolved) by the free choice of individuals. As such, the coercive power of government at any level is not only unnecessary, it distorts the societal benefit and religious meaning of the relationship. Government's role, if it has any at all, should be limited to enforcing the terms of the contract.
Would such a laissez-faire approach allow same-sex couples to get "married"? Of course. Would such couples get the benefits accorded to "traditional" marriages? No more or less than they do now; such benefits are under the control of the institution doing the providing, whether a charity, employer, or government.
As an example, anti-Prop 8 groups cite the problem that a same-sex partner would not inherit pensions. The truth is, pensions are not inheritable, unless it is stipulated in the contract(s) that create the pension. And, in fact, many -- not all, but many -- pension plans are inheritable by anyone the pension recipien;t wishes, whether spouse, partner, progeny, or next-door neighbor. That some, and maybe most pensions are not so designable is not a problem with the law, it is a problem with the contract signed to create the pension.
The heritability of some government benefits is a whole 'nother subject, but this, too, could be solved simply by removing the concept of "marriage" from the law altogether.
All of this said, I will probably vote in favor of Proposition 8. If we can't get government out of the marriage business altogether, we can at least get them to define it in a manner that most Californians can stomach.
ucfengr
Perhaps you should get over yourself, Boonton. You're really not smart enough to call other people stupid so freely.
I've only called 3 people here stupid. Try to think of it in a positive way....you're like a member of an elite force here....
Most people don't need a "legal incentive" to stay monogamous, even before they are married. ...
Like I said I think it is missing something to describe marriage as an 'incentive for monogamoy'. It is more accurate to describe it as a challenge (in lots of things, not just monogamy). A challenge has positives but it also has difficulties.
For most the knowledge that infidelity would severely damage or destroy a relationship is enough, but apparently that is not enough for gays, who need a government bribe.
You don't get a gov't bribe for being monogamous in a marriage. Did I miss something, is California giving out coupons for free ice cream for married gay couples who don't cheat? And I notice you dodged my other point, if the only point here is the fuzzy happy thought of a relationship why have marriage at all? Why don't people just live with each other as they please and if that turns out to be a life long relationship great if not ahhh well? Your view of marriage seems to not only make it unneeded for gays but for everyone. Channelling a bit of Hugh Hefner today are we?
@Justmakingitup
I agree wholeheartedly with you that getting government altogether out of the issue is the preferable course (as I argued in the thread on the former post on the subject). Christians err when they want representative government to make it safe to believe in Christianity. The only danger that concerns me as an American is the loss of freedom of speech under hate crime regimens.
JustMakingItUp: Hi, I'm Richard Hollis.
Actually I meant that I literally couldn't follow the links, as I had only received a draft version of Dustin's original essay by e-mail, and the links were not attached.
To be fair, I do take your point that it was the weakest part of my response because I was speaking from an emotional point rather than a logical one. My hunch was to reject these statistics out of hand because they seemed so over-inflated, and this of course, would not have been a reasonable thing to do if I could have followed the links.
However, I still think my hunch was justified. Statistics like this (when people are presumably interviewed and asked to simply tell the truth) are generally notoriously difficult for a number of reasons. For one thing, people lie. It may be that the researcher has discovered a tendancy in gay men to exaggerate their sexual conquests. It may be that the research involved heterosexual people who were still in relationships (and therefore more likely to lie about their infidelities). It may even be that the researchers were not impartial, and actively wanted to find that gay men were promiscuous, and so deliberately asked heterosexual people who seemed straight-laced and monogamous, and homosexual people who seemed rather... well... sluttish (for want of a better word).
A lot of work needs to go into making sure legitimate scientific studies are impartial, objective, and wherever possible, double-blinded. And that is before you even study the implications of the findings.
But yes, now I can access the links, I intend to read up on these studies (I still have not done so yet). It should make interesting reading.
JustMakingItUp,
In theory I'm not against your libertarian take on marriage but I'm not sure it is as practical as you depict to simply replace all of it with a bunch of contracts. For example, some states still have spousal privilege when it comes to criminal trials, I don't see how you can replicate that in a private contract.
Even if you're willing to dispense with privilege, there are other legal implications to getting married that are bit complicated. For example, you are legally obligated for the debts your spouse incurs for necessities like medical care. This obviously has a public policy benefit....Donald Trump's wife can't ask for charity care on the grounds that she has no job and her husband doesn't want to foot the bill but I don't think you could manufacture it by having your spouse carry around a private contract.
JustMakingItUp - Hi, I'm Richard Hollis.
Actually, the reason I was not able to access the link is that I had only received a draft of Dustin's post via e-mail and the links were not attached.
I do take your point that it was the weakest part of my response. I was taking an emotional stance rather than a logic one. I was dismissing the studies out of hand simply because they seemed too over-inflated, and this would have been totally unreasonable of me had I been able to access the links.
However, I don't think I was totally unjustified. Studies such as these (where people are presumably asked to fill out surveys and trusted to tell the truth) are notoriously fraught with difficulties. For one thing, people lie. It may be that the researchers actually found a tendancy in homosexuals to exaggerate their sexual conquests. Perhaps the heterosexuals interviewed were in relationships, and therefore less likely to admit to any infidelities. Perhaps the researchers themselves were biased, and actively wanted to prove homosexuals were more promiscuous, and so deliberately selected people they expected to give the results they wanted to hear.
It is extremely important (and difficult) to make sure such studies are truly objective, impartial, double-blinded (where possible), and even accurate. And that is before we even discuss the implications of the findings.
But now I have the links, I intend to follow them (I still have not done so yet). I'm sure they will make interesting reading.
JustMakingItUp - Hi, I'm Richard Hollis.
Actually, the reason I was not able to access the link is that I had only received a draft of Dustin's post via e-mail and the links were not attached.
I do take your point that it was the weakest part of my response. I was taking an emotional stance rather than a logic one. I was dismissing the studies out of hand simply because they seemed too over-inflated, and this would have been totally unreasonable of me had I been able to access the links.
However, I don't think I was totally unjustified. Studies such as these (where people are presumably asked to fill out surveys and trusted to tell the truth) are notoriously fraught with difficulties. For one thing, people lie. It may be that the researchers actually found a tendancy in homosexuals to exaggerate their sexual conquests. Perhaps the heterosexuals interviewed were in relationships, and therefore less likely to admit to any infidelities. Perhaps the researchers themselves were biased, and actively wanted to prove homosexuals were more promiscuous, and so deliberately selected people they expected to give the results they wanted to hear.
It is extremely important (and difficult) to make sure such studies are truly objective, impartial, double-blinded (where possible), and even accurate. And that is before we even discuss the implications of the findings.
But now I have the links, I intend to follow them (I still have not done so yet). I'm sure they will make interesting reading.
Ooops. Sorry about that...
Richie
I do take your point that it was the weakest part of my response. I was taking an emotional stance rather than a logic one. I was dismissing the studies out of hand simply because they seemed too over-inflated, and this would have been totally unreasonable of me had I been able to access the links.
The studies probably are overinflated, outdated and distorted in some or many respects but the larger issue is 'so what'. Statistics are always in flux and it is always possible to create the numbers that suit your agenda, and by create I don't mean lie but simply choose your subjects carefully to get the results you want. How about the divorce rate for A-level celebrities who marry within two years of their first cover on People magazine? Domestic abuse rates for couples that meet at AA or NA meetings perhaps? If I told you bloggers have a 97% failure rate at marriage how would you feel about the state telling you it's not going to let you get married for the sake of the 'institution'?
Great post!! I invite everyone to read the post on http://editorialsection.com
I haven't visited Evangelical Outpost for quite a while. Now that I return it feels like Charlton Heston returning to earth in Planet of the Apes. Is this some kind of Emergent Evangelicalism? From these comments, and those on other threads, it appears that many evangelicals support a redefinition of marriage and the family - beginning with gender, moving on I presume to number. A large number seem poised to support a candidate most distinguished for his promise to sweep away even the smallest impediments to the killing of unborn children as one of his first acts in office.
Freedom of the Gospel, indeed. This kind of freedom appears set to bind our nation for a very long time.
(Note: BitterClinger is merely a screenname, not intended to imply any relationship to Jamie Farr, his family or associates.)
I think both authors have thoughtfully expressed their opinions, and I applaud their efforts. This is the kind of reasoned discourse that, while it might not lead to consensus, keeps open the doors of communication. Thank you, Mr. Steeve and Mr. Hollis for your contributions. You have given me much to ponder.
I've only called 3 people here stupid. Try to think of it in a positive way....you're like a member of an elite force here....
As I said, you are not smart enough to call anybody stupid. Perhaps you should stop trying to justify it.
Like I said I think it is missing something to describe marriage as an 'incentive for monogamoy'.
Then talk to Ebonmuse, he was the one that asserted it was needed. Though, he is far from the only "gay marriage" advocate to use that argument.
What is sad is that people use Christianity when it is convenient for them. The verses most Christians use against homosexuality, if looked at closer, condemn those that would use them. If you do follow the Bible, Homosexuality is a sin. Guess what so is Adultery! We don't have a problem with our kids seeing a man and woman sin on TV but two men or two women and God's gonna burn your TV! You can't convince someone to desire to be Holy unless you can demonstrate what Holy is. It's Planks and Splinters. No I don't agree with homosexuality but I'm tired of people living with their girlfriend out of wedlock and Telling a Gay couple they will burn in Hell.
ucfengr
Then talk to Ebonmuse, he was the one that asserted it was needed. Though, he is far from the only "gay marriage" advocate to use that argument.
If you want to conduct private debates then take it to email, otherwise any argument posted on a comment board is fair game for criticism by anyone who reads it.
Nah, the comments you see that support the redefinition of marriage and family are the atheists, Cafeteria Christians, and others that nay-say evangelicals and purport to tell everybody they aren't tolerant enough (never mind the fact that Christ didn't tolerate sin).
The comments made by others tend to get lost in the shuffle or drown out by the comments from the self-appointed arbiters of intelligence, tolerance, and enlightenment.
If you want to conduct private debates then take it to email, otherwise any argument posted on a comment board is fair game for criticism by anyone who reads it.
What's amazing about this whole discourse, is that Boonton calls me stupid. Here's the path:
Ebonmuse asserts that gays need the incentive of marriage to practice monogamy.
I point out how silly that is and if it's true (which it could be, he is not the only gay marriage supporter to put forward that argument), gays obviously have bigger problems than not being able to be married.
Boonton calls me stupid for saying gays need an incentive to be monogamous, while at the same time showing that he doesn't understand what an incentive is (here's a clue, marriage is the incentive).
Now that I look at it, I find myself starting to agree with Boonton; I am stupid. Who but an idiot would get stuck in orbit around the black hole of stupidity that is Boonton?
It doesn't look as if the original author of this post intends to address my point. Unfortunate.
ucfengr, you have twisted my words. I did not say that gays "need the incentive of marriage to practice monogamy". That is obviously false: the large numbers of gay couples who are already living in monogamous relationships, fighting for the right to have those relationships legally recognized, is disproof enough of that. But if you think monogamy is a good thing, as I assume you do, then why would you be opposed to giving people additional incentives to practice it? If you're opposed to "bribing" people to be monogamous, do you also think we should roll back the tax exemptions and other benefits offered to heterosexual married couples?
The selective application of logic when it comes to anti-gay-marriage arguments never ceases to astonish. Are some gays promiscuous? No doubt. And something like 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Does that also prove that straight people are inherently promiscuous and don't deserve access to marriage either?
Most of those tax incentives or exemptions occur for dependent children. If the couple both work and earn extra money, their taxes can often be higher when their combined income pushes them into the higher tax bracket. Given how advocates brag about how homosexuals tend to earn more, that seems more likely to happen than not. One other thing to note is that depending on how much a parent spends on their child, that tax exemption does not really make a child any more affordable and only slightly mitigates the expenses of raising children. So loosing the tax exemptions and other supposed benefits given to heterosexual married couples would be worth it to me at least if it were to be traded for the elimination of monosexed marriage being recognized as valid by the government.
Do you think that the advocates for monosexed marriage would quit seeking governmental recognition of their relationship as a valid marriage if the tax exemptions and other benefits were non-existent for heterosexual marriages? I for one, do not think they would quit. I think bringing those things up is used as an evasion from having to talk about the true and underlying motives behind the activism.
I'm pretty educated in religion and theology (masters degrees in both). i lean pretty heavily on the conservative side when it comes to issues of homosexuality, bottom line, i disagree with it and don't think it's right or moral. With that said i would still not vote for proposition 8. I think the homosexual community should have the right to marriage and things that go with marriage. I also don't agree with the Muslim faith and many other faiths and practices but i still think Islamic people should have the right to get married. I think it's a smoke screen to think that the liberal illuminati are going to take over the country and gays are going to be the down fall of marriage. I simply don't believe that to be true. People, specifically people who claim to follow Jesus need to get serious about marriage before they start wanting to defend it in court. McCain being a huge example. This is America we believe in freedom of religion and equal right, i affirm those things and it's it's because of that that i think homosexuals should be able to marry.
I really don't see how someone well versed in religion and theology can counter Jesus' definition of marriage - one man and one woman. To do so implies that you find suspect at least one of his teachings. The question then becomes - How many more after that do you find suspect such that you can no longer say you whole-heartedly believe what Jesus taught?
Boonton calls me stupid for saying gays need an incentive to be monogamous, while at the same time showing that he doesn't understand what an incentive is (here's a clue, marriage is the incentive).
It's stupid to describe marriage as a bribe by the gov't to be monogamous. Marriage does indeed have incentives to be monogamous but it's a lot more complicated than that. It is a challenge to reap the rewards of mutual monogamy....the description of a marriage as a contract is very apt. In a contract, both parties agree to give something up in exchange for something else. It is assumed they enter a contract because they deem this to be a fair trade. Yes it is possible for one side to cheat (example, you accept the inventory but refuse to pay the vendor) so contract law has incentives for both sides not to cheat. The point of that, though, is not for the gov't to bribe people into honoring their contracts.
Smmtheory - hello again.
I just had to post to correct you, but Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality at all. Nothing. Not one thing. Which is odd in itself; if homosexuality is such a great sin, you'd think he'd at least MENTION it once...
To the people who say 'No' on prop 8.
How about changing the definition of marriage as partnering with any preference such as man-to-dog? woman-to-pig. Do you like it?
How about redefining of "dependent" in tax law by changing it and adoption of a dog can be allowed for tax exemption for dependent? Can you accept it?
Let's keep the common sense.
Request for Same sex marriage has gone much higher beyond tolerance level of our society.
Therfore, 'YES' on Prop 8 is absolutely necessary for our social health.
Jeong, that is a ridiculous comparrison. A marriage is a union of two consenting equals. You cannot marrying a dog because a dog has no idea what it is doing. It does not understand marriage, let alone consent to it. Therefore it is not a fair comparrison.
Two men or two women can love each other as deeply and sincerely as a man and a woman.
Requesting same-sex marriage does not go beyond tolerance at all.
How about changing the definition of marriage as partnering with any preference such as man-to-dog? woman-to-pig. Do you like it?
Not really, I see no argument in favor of man-dog or woman-pig marriages. I see a very good one against it which is that dogs and pigs are not humans. Last time I checked, gays are.
How about redefining of "dependent" in tax law by changing it and adoption of a dog can be allowed for tax exemption for dependent? Can you accept it?
Well anyone can be a dependent in tax law....if you are taking care of someone, I think the test is provide at least half their expenses and that is more than $5K a year.....as for expanding that to dogs, I'd love that as I have two dogs....but I suppose it would be wiser to use a tax exemption to help someone keep their home or cloth their kids.
Once it is allowed to redefine marriage as you prefer for Homosexuality, anybody might be able to redefine it according to their preference without restriciton. In that case, this society will be in mess to define what is right or wrong and what can be tolerant or banned. Without certain restriction of human freedom according to common social welfare, evetually this society will be uncontrolable and return to very primitive society.
If you think that man-to-man marriage is acceptable while man-to-dog is not acceptable just because dog is not humanbeing, it is completely ccontradictory logic because the man who prefer dog instead of humang being will be discriminated aaccording to your strange logic of 'NO' side of prop 8. If you think there is no problem to choose your partner for marriage with same sex, why does it become problem for a person to choose a dog as marriage partner. You have to keep in mind that there can be some weird people who prefer animals to humanbeing naturally, as you insist that homosexuality is innate.
Let's have common sense and logic...
The same sex marriage should not be tolerated in the health society.
'YES' on Prop 8...it should be for you and me and my children and future generation and all human being.
Well, let's put it this way, homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage, which Jesus did have something to say about. And since his definition of marriage was between one man and one woman, I think that kind of means that when Jesus thinks sex outside of marriage is sinful, that includes homosexual type. And for those who thought that was unfair, Jesus recommended celibacy. Homosexual activity doesn't exactly qualify as celibacy either. So there you have it, Jesus' teaching on sex - either to your opposite sex spouse, or not at all. Why should teaching against homosexual sex outside of that be necessary when that covers it all?
Actually, Jesus never said anything about sex, period, except to condemn lust and adultery. He never condemned premarital sex. He did say, according to one gospel, that divorce is never permissible. This is why the Catholic church doesn't allow divorce. Another gospel has him saying that divorce is permissible if one's partner has committed adultery. He seems to clearly condemn remarriage after divorce. Various churches and scholars have differed sharply on what Jesus really meant about divorce and whether one can ever divorce or ever remarry after a divorce. If Christians are serious about having the law reflect Jesus' teachings on marriage, they should push for a constitutional amendment banning divorce, except for scriptural causes. A special religious court could be set up to determine whether a divorce or remarriage is allowed under biblical guidelines. Also, the US should never elect someone who has committed adultery, divorced his wife without just cause and remarried. Like John McCain.
jeong
Once it is allowed to redefine marriage as you prefer for Homosexuality, anybody might be able to redefine it according to their preference without restriciton.
I don't recall anyone saying anything about preference, IMO it is about being fair and decent. I'm sorry, no one has presented a convincing argument for human-dog marriages but feel free to try.
If you think that man-to-man marriage is acceptable while man-to-dog is not acceptable just because dog is not humanbeing, it is completely ccontradictory logic because the man who prefer dog instead of humang being will be discriminated aaccording to your strange logic of 'NO' side of prop 8.
True a man who wants to marry a dog doesn't get his way. So what? A dog still isn't a human and last time I checked is not able to enter contracts, not able to make informed consent, in general doesn't have the intelligence that a human does....even very stupid humans.
You have to keep in mind that there can be some weird people who prefer animals to humanbeing naturally, as you insist that homosexuality is innate.
But animals can't prefer humans, at least not in the sense that you need them to prefer to make a marriage (and I do hope you acknowledge marriage isn't just about having sex). There are humans in this category as well. For example, you can't marry someone whose in a coma.
The way it was before No-Fault divorce laws were written in other words. Christians were steamrolled on that one too. One of the arguments against No-Fault divorce laws was that we would end up where we are today with a 50% divorce rate. A lot of good it did them to try to talk common sense into the activists and meddlers back then. And would you and the other proponents of monosexed "marriage" be sanguine about throwing out No-Fault divorce laws? HECK NO! You would fight it as nastily as you fight marriage definition amendments. Don't even pretend otherwise. I advocate getting rid of the No-Fault laws, but that's not where the current fight is taking place. Suggesting that that is where we should take the fight is kind of like a bait-and-switch tactic, or pointing off to space somewhere behind your opponents back and saying "What's that?" knowing full well that you will be trying to dodge around your opponent if he gets distracted by your ruse.
The annulment process in the Catholic Church.
Here's the thing about pre-marital sex. It leads to adultery in one way or another. First, if a man has sex with a woman prior to marrying her, the religious view is that they should formalize the marriage they consumated. If they don't, and then later that man gets married to a different woman, he has retroactively committed adultery. Now some people might consider the second sexual relationship the adulterous one, some might consider the first relationship the adulterous one in a kind of front-loaded sort of way. Either way, the adultery has been committed. And not just for that man, but having not married the woman he had intercourse with in the first place, they are both causing each other to commit adultery which is compounding the sin.
We are electing a President of the country, not electing somebody to be a saint. Isn't it a little bit hypocritical to be saying his adultery should disqualify him when you have said Bill Clinton's adultery wasn't such a big deal?
Boonton,
It is surely true that there will be nobody who want to marry with dog. However my point is that, if all the effort for redefinition for same sex marriage is allowed, then marriage can be redefined according to any preference. And also we can allow redefining of all other social terms. What if redefining adult? Let's say for example, somebody want to marry with 7 years old kid, it is prohibited at present time. However, with the similar logic of requesting for same sex marriage, somebody can complain and appeal for the permit of the kind marriage with kid. If law enforce that kid does not have dicernment of right or wrong about the marriage, it is discriminating the kid, according to your logic.
Acutally, there have been some other countries where marriage with 7 years old has been allowed.
Of course, I cannot tolerate for kid to marry with adult. Likewise I cannot tolerate for the marriage between same sex. Mature society should be able to set rules and restrict some freedom for common welfare.
Dustin:
Clearly you put a lot of effort into thinking through and depicting your position in favor of Proposition 8. However, your argument suffers from enough deficiencies that it fails to support your conclusion.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of society. That phrase is often used but seldom explained. When I say "fundamental building block of society" I am referring to marriage's natural creation of families.
You conflate two terms here, marriage and families, base your position on the latter, and then use indirection to corral the former.
Families are the building block of society. Civil marriage is a legal construct to original purpose was to protect the property rights of women and the children that were, until the Pill, the eventually nearly inevitable outcome of sex.
Clearly, protecting the property rights of dependents is important. However, in linking families and marriage as you do, you are appealing to the same notions of human nature that animate the left: our nature and actions are determined by society.
I doubt very much you believe that; in fact, I'll bet you believe precisely the opposite. However, without that underlying assumption, your conflation fails. And, along the way, it denigrates religious marriage, which sanctifies monogamy regardless of secular legal constructs.
According to A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, "There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father."
I think that is close enough to objective truth to take as stipulated.
However, as a practical matter, it is presents . Within the realm of human affairs, there will always be some children who do not have such an environment available to them. Even more sadly, there are children for whom there are few options.
In order to complete that statement, it needs to consider those children for whom the options are two: an series of foster parents, or adoption by a same-sex couple.
Appealing to the advisability of married mother and father for children is pointless if that option is not on offer.
Which leaves the question that matters open and unaddressed: which is least bad, being raised by a married same-sex couple, or foster care?
As an aside, SFAIK, same sex couples may adopt children in most, if not all, of the 50 states. Whether that is a good idea or not is a subject for a separate thread that should always keep in mind the options on offer.
... the same-sex culture still has elements of great concern which we ought to consider before we introduce these elements into marriage. Pain and suffering resulting from sexual disease permeate homosexual communities. According to ex-gay speaker Mike Haley, the odds of a straight man contracting AIDS after one heterosexual encounter are 1 in 165,000 as opposed to 1 in 175 for gay men after one homosexual encounter.
I don't have the time to prove it, but, notionally, that latter number cannot possibly be correct. Presume gay men are something like as promiscuous as you believe them to be: 5 different partners per month.
If the odds of a gay man contracting AIDS are in fact 1 in 175 unique encounters, then essentially all gay men are dead.
Except they aren't, so that stat needs some explaining.
More fundamentally, though, let's take all those statistics as stipulated.
So far as I know, Evangelists agree that mankind is fallen. Your statistics, at best, show that gays are somewhat more fallen than the rest of us. Which demands the question: is there a fallenness threshold beyond which marriage is not allowed?
If so, then you need to show it, and how gays fall on the far side. Otherwise, these stats, even if true, do not advance your argument even an inch towards its goal.
Your moral framework needs foremost to be informed by deciding up front whether morality applies to the situation at hand.
In order for something to assess the morality of something, one must first know the extent to which that thing involves a choice.
For instance, (although Christians once thought otherwise), there is absolutely no moral component to being left handed -- there is no choice in the matter.
Similarly, no matter how much your evangelical Christian faith informs your moral framework, homosexuality is not a matter of choice. There simply is no moral component to being gay.
Now, you may counter that while there is no moral component to being gay, actualization of that fact is immoral. Unfortunately, not only does that leave you on the horns of the Euthryphro dilemma, it also presents you with a theodicy problem: why would God create a group of people and then demand that others ostracize, and even kill, them?
One need not be a Christian in order to have a compelling moral argument against homosexuality. For example, you might be Aristotelian. If so, you might consider the anatomical design of men and women and conclude that homosexual sex is against the proper function of humans.
As it happens, all mammals start existence as females. It is only through the Y-linked expression of hormones during gestation that a female body plan becomes male. What would an Aristotelian make of that? Particularly when informed the Jamie Lee Curtis is, by Aristotelian standards, male?
Your argument in favor of Prop-8, the result of which is to impose a sectarian notion upon a non-sectarian society, simply fails to make its case. The task facing you is to convince the rest of us that allowing gays to marry will somehow corrode marriages for heterosexuals.
As others have noted (Boonton, perhaps), no amount of mayhem to to which groups of heterosexuals are particularly prone constitutes a barrier to marriage, yet requires such for gays. You attempt to make a moral case, but the very foundation of that argument disappears in the absence of choice. Finally, you make an appeal to anatomical design without acknowledging its basics or contingencies.
Your position makes perfect sense for insisting evangelical Christians refuse the marriage sacrament to gays. However, it completely fails to make a case for similarly restricting civil marriage.
The way it was before No-Fault divorce laws were written in other words. Christians were steamrolled on that one too. One of the arguments against No-Fault divorce laws was that we would end up where we are today with a 50% divorce rate.
Whose this 'we' here? Christians? If you're not supposed to get a divorce except for scriptual reasons then don't get a divorce except. Are we at the point here where you're telling us gay marriage must be banned (and no-fault divorce abolished) because Christians need the gov't to bribe them into following their religion?
The annulment process in the Catholic Church.
Last time I checked it was alive and well and hasn't fallen even though it is highly unpopular among other Christians, not supported by civil marriage law and is even unpopular among many Catholics.
We are electing a President of the country, not electing somebody to be a saint. Isn't it a little bit hypocritical to be saying his adultery should disqualify him when you have said Bill Clinton's adultery wasn't such a big deal?
I guess we just expected something more from someone from the 'pro-American' portion of the country. It's not the first time smmtheory has disappointed.
jeong
It is surely true that there will be nobody who want to marry with dog. However my point is that, if all the effort for redefinition for same sex marriage is allowed, then marriage can be redefined according to any preference.
Your error is assuming the argument in favor of gay marriage is simply "well that's what some gays prefer and we should always do what people prefer". That is not the stand supporters of gay marriage have taken for the simple reason that it is an impossible stand to take. People of contradictory preferences, you would rather there be no gay people, some others would rather everyone be gay, others yet would rather be allowed to drive around with a nuclear bomb in their trunk.
What if redefining adult? Let's say for example, somebody want to marry with 7 years old kid, it is prohibited at present time. ....Of course, I cannot tolerate for kid to marry with adult. Likewise I cannot tolerate for the marriage between same sex. Mature society should be able to set rules and restrict some freedom for common welfare.
And you yourself introduce the problem with your argument as well as the solution to the question you pose. Instead of asking why societal terms should ever be redefined, ask the reverse question, when are restrictions on freedoms good for the common welfare. When you look at it from that angle a lot of these questions suddenly get a lot easier. Interracial marriage bans? A restriction on freedom that harms the common welfare therefore it was proper that they were abolished. Marriage of 7 yr olds? Big common welfare problem. How about marriage of 17 yr olds? Well that's a bit iffier so states of differing rules. Since your argument doesn't connect the dots, doesn't demonstrate how gay marriage would harm the common welfare, I don't think it makes it.
Hey Skipper
I don't have the time to prove it, but, notionally, that latter number cannot possibly be correct. Presume gay men are something like as promiscuous as you believe them to be: 5 different partners per month
1. This is kind of technical but why should one assume a bell curve distribution of gay promiscuity rather than say a power law distribution? The bell curve fits certain sets of data like height. Most people are a few inches around the 'average height' with fewer and fewer people more distant from that average. A power law follows a distribution like income. If you calculate the average income by exluding the richest 0.05% you'll get a radically lower number than if you include them. Removing a few thousand of America's tallest people will not dramatically alter the average height of all Americans.
2. Given this possibility, even if 5 in 1 is the population average there are gay men who are less than 5 in one.. Possibly a great number with a smalle portion being 'super promiscious' enough to impact the average dramatically.
3. Again given this, are there no gay men who have no partners per month? Who, for whatever reason, have not had any sex or haven't had any in a while? Or perhaps are having (gay) sex on rare occassions like what we suspect of Idaho's Senator Larry Craig? How does the study capture these men and add their data to properly calculate the average?
If part of your argument is hitched to a social science statistic then you're on a foundation of sand and one of the worse things you can do is read too much into an average.
The 'we' here is American society at large. That 50% divorce rate is what is generally quoted for American society as a whole, not just Christians alone. But you kind of prove my point about how advocates for monosexed "marriage" would fight against repeal of No-Fault just as nastily as they fight for monosexed "marriage".
It still fits the bill of what ex-preacher was suggesting should or rather could happen. What's your point? I don't know why you continue to presume to speak for Christians when you are not one.
Well, yes, I can see where you would be disappointed about having your hypocrisy with respect to adultery pointed out. After all, isn't hypocrisy considered the gravest of all sins among the moral relativists?
smmtheory
It still fits the bill of what ex-preacher was suggesting should or rather could happen. What's your point? I don't know why you continue to presume to speak for Christians when you are not one.
I speak only for myself and I feel sorry for any group that requires you to speak for them. As for the Catholic Church, I fail to see the problem. If you abide by their teachings about marriage, you will not get remarried if divorced despite the fact that civil law has no objection (and many evangelical churchs might welcome your remarriage with open arms). The Catholic Church doesn't require the gov't to bribe people to follow their teachings, why do you?
Well, yes, I can see where you would be disappointed about having your hypocrisy with respect to adultery pointed out. After all, isn't hypocrisy considered the gravest of all sins among the moral relativists?
1. You failed to point out any hypocrisy on my part or anyone elses.
2. I'm not a moral relativist, but wouldn't a 'gravest sin' among relativists be something of a contradiction? Kind of like an underdressed nudist?
There is huge misunderstanding from 'No' side of prop 8. Most people in 'No' side of prop 8 misuderstand that the the same sex marriage is one of civi right movement in line with the past civil right movement started in 1960s.
The past civil right movoment was not about 'WHAT' but about 'HOW'. In other words, the movement has targeted to break down twisted social hierachy in order to give all social members equality. The real civil right movement have never attempted to destroy fundamental 'WHAT' of this society. However the same sex marriage is quite different than the real civil right movement because it is targeting to destruct our society into complete mess and uncontrollable status. They are destroying the fundamental 'WHAT'.
IT WILL EVENTUALLY TRIGGER 'THE END OF WORLD'. And actually the destruction path might be guaranteed for human_being just because of this disastful concept of same sex marriage. Look beyond 20 years from now and consider how this world will be like. I am very concerning for my next generation just because of this kind of sinful movement. Please look at your conscience and watch for what will happen next.
jeong
They are destroying the fundamental 'WHAT'.IT WILL EVENTUALLY TRIGGER 'THE END OF WORLD'.
Do you always tune up the rhetoric when you're losing an argument?
Look beyond 20 years from now and consider how this world will be like.
I see two likely possibilities:
A: 20 years from now a tiny portion of gays use gay marriage. Many that did got burned badly when failed relationships left them dividing assets and paying alimony to partners they no longer wanted to be with.
B: 20 years from now a portion of gays use gay marriage. Like other demographic groups they have 'success rates' (defined as no divorces within 5 years of marriage) that are sometimes greater and sometiems smaller than heterosexuals as a whole or sub-cohorts of heterosexuals.
In both cases the existence of gay marriage has no detectable impact on the far more popular heterosexual marriages (about 95% of all marriages). Like today some churches recognize gay marriages, others do not. There is probably more acceptance of gay marriage itself in the population but again it is nearly impossible to detect any impact positive or negative on heterosexual marriage.
Can you give us a plausible future scenario? I've asked several times now for 'yes' supporters to show exactly how existence of marriage for a small minority group directly impacts their ability to be good husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers. Connect the dots for us.
And just where do you think I do require the government to bribe people to follow the civic law? If there is a specific argument I have made, please point it out. As I have stated, I would gladly give up any supposed benefits the government apportions to marriage if it meant the advocates for monosexed marriage would quit advocating for government recognition. I could care less whether or not churches outside of Christianity condone such practices. There have even been churches that were nominally inside of Christianity who have turned their backs on Christianity and condoned such practices as monosexed marriage. What I do care about is the damage that is being done to children through the government recognition of monosexed marriages. Our laws should be used to protect the least able to protect themselves, and this is being used to run roughshod over the children by adults who refuse to be adults.
1. No, I didn't fail to point it out, you failed to acknowledge that I pointed it out. It looks like you have a mental block against recognizing that you seem to have a problem with McCain's adultery whereas you have no problem with Clinton's.
2. Well if you talk like a moral relativist, you might ought to expect being pegged as a moral relativist, and hypocrisy IS a contradiction.
Boonton...
Please read carefully my point in line.
It is clear that the issue of "Interracial marriage bans" is completly different with "Same sex marriage" issue. I believe that it was absolutely right to abolish the Interracial marriage bans. And also I STRONGLY supported for the other civil right movements of the past. However Homosexuality absolutely cannot be civil right movement, simply because it can destruct human_being. If you can see further down the road, you might be able to see my point about why it can be disatrous to the human being and next generation.
Smmtheory
What I do care about is the damage that is being done to children through the government recognition of monosexed marriages. Our laws should be used to protect the least able to protect themselves, and this is being used to run roughshod over the children by adults who refuse to be adults.
OK, please be specific here. Children are generated by heterosexuals except in the rather limited case of test tube babies. So what exactly are you talking about?
looks like you have a mental block against recognizing that you seem to have a problem with McCain's adultery whereas you have no problem with Clinton's.
I don't have any particular problem with McCain's adultery. I wasn't part of his marriage, it is primarily his concern. I have my own problems to deal with.
2. Well if you talk like a moral relativist, you might ought to expect being pegged as a moral relativist, and hypocrisy IS a contradiction.
You 'might ought' put more effort into your own arguments.
jeong
You asked a question and I tried to answer it as best I could. Please try to return the favor. Connect the dots for us because quite frankly I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect you're pumping up the rhetoric without thinking about the debts your reasoning and logic skills are going to have to make good on.
boonton:
If part of your argument is hitched to a social science statistic then you're on a foundation of sand and one of the worse things you can do is read too much into an average.
Ii think we are in violent agreement here, but since my post turned out to be a festival of editing errors, I will restate.
Dustin used a number of statistics. Collectively, they beg disbelief. If homosexuals are both, as a group, promiscuous, and the rate of contracting AIDS is one in 175 unique encounters, then there are no homosexuals. Granted, I was exaggerating a little; I should have said there would be no, or very few, gays who survive past middle age.
In other words, on the face of it, one of those two statistics must be wrong.
Not that it matters, because, as you (at least I think it was you) pointed out above, applying such reasoning to gays, but neglecting to do so for heterosexuals, rather reeks of hypocrisy.
smmtheory:
As I have stated, I would gladly give up any supposed benefits the government apportions to marriage if it meant the advocates for monosexed marriage would quit advocating for government recognition.
So, let me get this straight. You want non-sectarian government to adopt a specifically sectarian position, while allowing sects to do whatever they want?
Christianity defines homosexuality as immoral.
What if Christianity is wrong?
Hey Skipper
It's tedious work but it is often interesting to probe suspect stats a bit deeper. Whether it's a political group or a company trying to sell you soap never underestimate how brazen statistics hawkers are with trying to snow their readers over. For example:
78% of lesbians have reported domestic abuse related problems
If you follow the link you find an unfootnoted statement that:
"78% of lesbians report that they have either defended themselves or fought back against an abusive partner"
First problem, it is not specified whether 'partner' is only female partners or female and male (there are lesbians who have had relationships with men you know).
Second problem, the second page of this document lists 'types of abuse'....including 'instigates feelins of shame' as part of sexual abuse, 'financial abuse' that includes using 'monetary resources of the partner or of the relationship' without the other's consent....'beauty-ism'....basically this metric seems to include a lot more than what many of us think of when we hear 'domestic abuse'. This isn't just your 'Burning Bed' stuff but also what a lot of heterosexual couples would consider fighting over money and so on. Not only that, if one partner in any relationship ever felt like they were being made to feel self conscious about their looks, intelligence, money or whatnot that too counts as 'abuse'. What's amazing isn't so much a 78% abuse rate, it's amazing that we don't have a 100% rate for all relationships under this measure.
Another clue that we are seeing a distorted statistic, the phrase:
"18% of this group described their behavior as self-defense or 'trading blow for blow or insult for insult'" Insult for insult? Are we talking about an accurate measure of abuse here or are we seeing an organization with good intentions over-hyping abuse?
However, within the homosexual community, infidelity is the norm. Recent studies show that 95.6% of gay men report infidelity in their current relationship. Numerous studies reveal that, among self-described committed homosexual couples, each individual has had an average of 3-5 partners a year
This link is pretty amazing because it is an FRC one. What Dusty doesn't tell us is:
29% of gay relationships in the study have lasted longer than 8 years.
29% lasted 4-7 years
31% 1-3 years
11% less than 1 year.
This is a somewhat amzing 60% of relationships lasting 4 or more years. Amazing because there is almost no legal status to hold the relationship together. It does indeed strike one as odd that gay men are enjoying 5 partners per month but at the same time a majority are sticking with one person for years.
Here is the fact, conservatives know better. Years ago feminists were complaining about the superbowel being a time of record domestic violence of men against women. Conservatives took apart the numbers and demonstrated quite nicely there was no scientific basis to them at all. So the right has...or at least had...the ability to talk intelligently about statistics. What accounts for this newfound ignorance?
I don't believe that it is specifically a sectarian position. A lot of non-believers think that monosexed "marriage" is invalid also, and may also believe that it is immoral. I don't care to interfere in what the homosexuals do in the privacy of their own sects and homes. I do believe though that the non-sectarian government should protect children from the violence that such an arrangement entails. If homosexuals want to pretend they are married, they should be allowed to pretend, but since their arrangement would not naturally produce children, children should be lawfully excluded from their midst.
Christianity isn't wrong about that, but even if I grant you the position for argument's sake, where is the harm of being told that it is immoral? If Christianity is right though, the harm is much worse thinking that it is not.
Hey Skipper
It's tedious work but it is often interesting to probe suspect stats a bit deeper. Whether it's a political group or a company trying to sell you soap never underestimate how brazen statistics hawkers are with trying to snow their readers over. For example:
78% of lesbians have reported domestic abuse related problems
If you follow the link you find an unfootnoted statement that:
"78% of lesbians report that they have either defended themselves or fought back against an abusive partner"
First problem, it is not specified whether 'partner' is only female partners or female and male (there are lesbians who have had relationships with men you know).
Second problem, the second page of this document lists 'types of abuse'....including 'instigates feelins of shame' as part of sexual abuse, 'financial abuse' that includes using 'monetary resources of the partner or of the relationship' without the other's consent....'beauty-ism'....basically this metric seems to include a lot more than what many of us think of when we hear 'domestic abuse'. This isn't just your 'Burning Bed' stuff but also what a lot of heterosexual couples would consider fighting over money and so on. Not only that, if one partner in any relationship ever felt like they were being made to feel self conscious about their looks, intelligence, money or whatnot that too counts as 'abuse'. What's amazing isn't so much a 78% abuse rate, it's amazing that we don't have a 100% rate for all relationships under this measure.
Another clue that we are seeing a distorted statistic, the phrase:
"18% of this group described their behavior as self-defense or 'trading blow for blow or insult for insult'" Insult for insult? Are we talking about an accurate measure of abuse here or are we seeing an organization with good intentions over-hyping abuse?
However, within the homosexual community, infidelity is the norm. Recent studies show that 95.6% of gay men report infidelity in their current relationship. Numerous studies reveal that, among self-described committed homosexual couples, each individual has had an average of 3-5 partners a year
This link is pretty amazing because it is an FRC one. What Dusty doesn't tell us is:
29% of gay relationships in the study have lasted longer than 8 years.
29% lasted 4-7 years
31% 1-3 years
11% less than 1 year.
This is a somewhat amzing 60% of relationships lasting 4 or more years. Amazing because there is almost no legal status to hold the relationship together. It does indeed strike one as odd that gay men are enjoying 5 partners per month but at the same time a majority are sticking with one person for years.
Here is the fact, conservatives know better. Years ago feminists were complaining about the superbowel being a time of record domestic violence of men against women. Conservatives took apart the numbers and demonstrated quite nicely there was no scientific basis to them at all. So the right has...or at least had...the ability to talk intelligently about statistics. What accounts for this newfound ignorance?
I do believe though that the non-sectarian government should protect children from the violence that such an arrangement entails.
What exactly are you talking about?
I am referring to the violence done to children by exposing them to homosexuals pretending to be married to each other.
...Need I say more Mr. Statistics Hawker?
So your not actually talking about gay marriage but children 'exposed' to gay couples. OK, next time please let us know before post 50 that we can ignore you.
Need I say more Mr. Statistics Hawker?
Nope, you guys are caught hawking bum stats. I wouldn't say anything more if I were you.
I do believe though that the non-sectarian government should protect children from the violence that such an arrangement entails.
What point are you trying to make?
Even if gay marriages to subject children to some sort of unique violence (I don't have time to track down the link, but IIRC, lesbian couples have a far lower rate of child abuse than heterosexual couples with one step parent, particularly where the step parent is male), that really has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Gays may already adopt children in many, if not most, states. In all states, they can produce children through artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood.
If that is what bothers you, than is what you should be fighting against.
However, as I mentioned above, even granting there is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father, that forces a false dichotomy.
<