Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[angus]

Gay marriage will erode traditional marriage.  We already see this erosion happening in this very thread.  Believe it or not, marriage isn't just about love.  You can be in love and not be married.  For those who are asking, "Will legalizing gay marriage make me love my wife less?", I ask them, "Does thefact that gay marriage is not legal make a gay person less in love with their partner?"  Of course not, because the two are not unbreakably related.

The purpose of marraige therefore is misunderstood by those who argue for gay marriage.  They view the world, as most liberal minded people do, as a search for pleasure and gratification, where the self is the center of all things.  Conservatives tend to view the world differently, and put the self behind tradition, which should be passed from generation to generation as a guarantor of stability.

For liberals, marraige is a convenient thing that they can use to force society to accept lifestyles it would otherwise find unacceptable and to sanction their right to personalized bliss.  Conservatives view marriage as an institution with a societal purpose, in this case the primary purpose is to provide legal structures that are condusive to raising children.

In Scandanavia, we see the result of the liberal view winning out.  The number of out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes is on the rise.  Denmark legalized gay marriage in 1989, Norway inn 1993, and Sweden in 1994.  The result has been a near total collapse of marriage in Scandinavia.  A majority of children born in Denmark have unmarried parents, including 60% of first-born children.  During the nineties, the decade when gay marriage was accepted in Norway and Sweden, the rates for out of wedlock birth rose from 39% to 50% and 49% to 54% respectively.  This all happened during a decade when American out of wedlock birth rates leveled off.  In fact, Sweden (54%), Norway (49%), and Denmark (46%) represent the second, third, and fourth highest rates of illegitimacy in the industrialized world.  Only Iceland is higher.  For the record, the US has a rate of 32%.  It can be said that in Scandanavia, the definition of what is a family no longer focuses on marraige, but on parenthood.  Usually single parenthood, since without marraige the traditional legal bonds that keep father from walking away from their responsibilities are gone.

In other words, gay marriage has destroyed real marriage in Scandinavia in less than a decade.  If this is what you want for America, by all means, suport gay marriage.

John Ford,
your post was thoughtful (and provocative, even though it may not have been intended that way).  It was said that allowing intermarriage would destroy (or erode) marriage, beginning more than a hundred years ago.  In fact, a statute was passed in Massachusetts in 1913 forbidding state officials from marrying two people who were not allowed to be married in their home states.  There were debates in Boston and Washington and everyelse, but in time, it wasn't the fiery uplifting speeches from supporters that brought about acceptance (by 80+% of the US public according to Gallup) of white and nonwhite marrying, but rather the mundane.  People just got used to the idea.  If a vietnamese woman and her black husband and their little half-breed children moved in next door, would you freak?  I'm guessing not.  My bet is that it will ultimately be the mundane (rather than fiery speeches and court decisions) that bring about acceptance of gay marriage as well.  Just a thought.

[angus]

angus,

I am not so sure that my argument was widely used to attack interracial marriage back in the day.  I was under the impression that the main objections to interracial marriage were either that it was unnatural for the two to marry or that it would dilute the purity of the white race.

Indeed, the purity of the white race has been diluted.  They were right about that.  But I'll assume we agree that it isn't a sound reason to forbid such marriages.  And yes, I may have read some between the lines of your post.  Actually, I got sidetracked with a point about social acceptance being a more significant factor than presidential elections, speeches, etc.  But back to the point, your argument is unsupported.  True, divorce rates in scandanavia are high, just as they are here, but that has more to do with other aspects of individualism than allowance for homosexual couples to wed.  I think it is primarily due to the decrease in arranged marriage.  For example, in California well over half of all marriages end in divorce (even though this state has specifically passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman!) whereas the divorce rate in India is about 1 in 20 marriages.  So, if you want to turn back that clock, you need to push for family-arranged marriages.  It would probably lower the divorce rate.  But lowering the divorce rate isn't really the goal, is it?  At least I thought the goal was about federalism.  Respecting the constitution.  The constitution gives the commonwealth of massachusetts the right to marry gays just as it gives the state of california the right to define marriage as a one man/one woman thing.  Do you disagree?

[angus]

CaliforniaDreamer, I don't know whether jesus would weep for you, but my assumption is that the metaphor about hypocrisy and casting stones would certainly be apt in this case.  you'll come across as much less educated than you probably are if you refer to the world's all-time best-selling book as "silly"  Just a thought.  Dry maybe.  Boring definitely.  But not silly.  You don't want to come accross the way some republicans do when they dismiss the NYT as a "liberal rag" do you?  And you certainly don't want to come across like a book-burner opposed to religious freedom, I assume.

[angus]

the 'schwarzennegger wing'??  (i.e., the opportunistic, no-talent hacks waiting for a party to join?)  no thanks.  The religious right may be a minor annoyance.  But the Shallow Right is a major one.  Schwarzennegger can ride out on the same opportunistic horse he rode in on.  Well, if he was John Wayne he would, I guess in his case he'll ride out on Arianna Huffington's big polluted head.  Either way, good riddance.

[angus]

Teach your children well
Their father's hell did slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by

Don't you ever ask them why
If they told you, you will cry
So just look at them and sigh
And know they love you

  --crosby, stills, nash, young

[angus]

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

[angus]

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

It does bother me, because I have become quite convinced by the stats that gay marriage will lead to more out of wedlock births, shich I believe will lead to more child poverty.

well, except that two men cannot have children, and neither can two women, so how can such pairings lead to more births at all?  I say again, there's a disconnect between your statistics and your conclusions.  See, Jmfcst (and Brambila, I think) base their argument on Sin.  Fine, I can accept it.  For example, my parents raised me to believe capital punishment was a great crime against humanity.  That is a moralist view and I don't try to defend it rationally, I simply point out that I "feel" it is "wrong."   It would be disingenuous of me to try to pull up cost analyses to support my objections, when my philosophical objection is dearer to me than any statistic.  (This is why I have stopped arguing this point with them.  They're sold on their objections deeply and culturally, and I respect their freedoms to maintain such objections, and if a majority of my countrymen elect legislators who hold such objections, I will accept that.)  But that's a far cry from pathos posing as logos.  I've said before that I accept pathos and ethos as reasonable modes of debate.  Logos is superior, or so we've all been taught, but sometimes you just can't get that, and it's okay.  Your attempt to sell the idea logically isn't working.  If you have deeply held moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality in general, as some posters boldly and honestly admit, then good for you.  As President Bush says about other things and I gratuitously apply here, "We just need to change hearts and minds.  That takes time."

[angus]

Wakie,
There is none.  This is a rare point of agreement.  Refreshing.  

[angus]

not to picky on what mormons call gentiles, but isn't there a compelling argument in favor of polygamy?  And in any case, this is so far off-topic.  that's the problem.  I think there are those who really argue that a change in definition alters your own marriage, like maybe the way grade-inflation devalues your own degree.  but in the latter case, it's easy to see (employers know BU grads are flaky, they look into it and see that BU grads all get As, etc., etc.) but in the former case it's really a specious argument, at best.  How, beyond the intriguing but irrelevant stats you mention, does it devalue a heteromarriage?  I'm really curious.  I'm about to be married, by the way, to a straight woman, and she's ever so slightly less understanding about this issue than I, but can't really make the case, either, against homomarriage to my satisfaction.  then again, who really cares?  Do you really honestly expect me to believe, if you're really straight, that all this bothers you?

It does bother me, because I have become quite convinced by the stats that gay marriage will lead to more out of wedlock births, shich I believe will lead to more child poverty.

well, except that two men cannot have children, and neither can two women, so how can such pairings lead to more births at all?  I say again, there's a disconnect between your statistics and your conclusions.  See, Jmfcst (and Brambila, I think) base their argument on Sin.  Fine, I can accept it.  For example, my parents raised me to believe capital punishment was a great crime against humanity.  That is a moralist view and I don't try to defend it rationally, I simply point out that I "feel" it is "wrong."   It would be disingenuous of me to try to pull up cost analyses to support my objections, when my philosophical objection is dearer to me than any statistic.  (This is why I have stopped arguing this point with them.  They're sold on their objections deeply and culturally, and I respect their freedoms to maintain such objections, and if a majority of my countrymen elect legislators who hold such objections, I will accept that.)  But that's a far cry from pathos posing as logos.  I've said before that I accept pathos and ethos as reasonable modes of debate.  Logos is superior, or so we've all been taught, but sometimes you just can't get that, and it's okay.  Your attempt to sell the idea logically isn't working.  If you have deeply held moral or philosophical objections to homosexuality in general, as some posters boldly and honestly admit, then good for you.  As President Bush says about other things and I gratuitously apply here, "We just need to change hearts and minds.  That takes time."

I didn't say that gays would produce children out of wedlock.  I also didn't say that there would be more births in general.  I said that legalizing gay marriage changes the legal definition of marriage and by extension will change the way people behave towards the institution and within the institution.

This includes one change in particular- redefining the family in such a way that breaks the link between both marriage and monogamy, and the link between marriage and child rearing.  It is precisely because gays by definition cannot have children that legalizing gay marriage will have this effect.  In fact, this effect has already happenned in Scandanavia.

Once marriage is no longer intertwined with child rearing, marriage will not seem to be an important prerequisite for women who want to have children.  How you could have interpreted my comments to mean that I thought the effect of gay marriage would be a direct one is bewildering, and makes me almost think you didn't read my post very carefully.

I'm not exactly sure which "pathos" you think I have.  It certainly isn't a religious one, since I am not at all religious.  It certainly isn't a blanket redneck homophobia.  Precisely what "pathos" do I have, angus?

I started thinking about those Freshman English (composition and rhetoric) voices after CarlHayden posted something about it.  I forget where or when he did, but it was along the lines of saying someone's argument was "pathetic" as in the original meaning.  I realized most of my arguments are pathetic, in that they come from my heart, my gut.  They're passionate.  I was on the debate club (apparently called "forensics team" in Maryland) in high school and did very well with pathos, and have the medals and trophies to prove it, thankyouverymuch.  So don't take it as an insult when someone says you're using pathos, rather than logos, to make a point.  Sometimes an emotional appeal is just what's needed.  For example, if Al Gore had a pulse, he just may have won last time.  Bush knows about pathos and peppers his speech with words like "love" and "heart" very often.  When I read your posts about this issue, it comes accross to me as full of emotional appeal.  I like it.  Really.  I just don't agree with it.  

And I don't think I called you a homophobe.  I agree with jmfcst's point that we bandy about such hateful words far too often.  This isn't coming from political correctness by the way, just plain old-fashioned cultural sensitivity.  There is a difference.  My point was primarily that you haven't provided sufficient evidence that allowing homosexual marriage will erode heterosexual ones, bring about unwanted pregnancies, or increase the divorce rate.  Yes, it's true that we'd redefine something.  I'm not one of these folks who'll try to blow smoke up your ass by saying otherwise.  But anything that follows is just your speculation, and the Scandanavian statistics you cited bear no relevance to your speculation because, as has been pointed out, they're not even doing gay marriage.  Our divorce rates will be high as long as we allow people the freedom to marry whomever they want.  You want me to guarantee that I'll stay married forever?  Then force me to marry a white, middle-class, second-generation american with similar sociopolitical and economic philosophy and similar upbringing.  Short of that, you'll have to deal with the downside, as well as the upside, of freedom.  But at least apply those freedoms evenly to all, not just to straight people.

[angus]

Wanna get me to play amateur pop psychologist?!  OOHH, you know I love to do that.  Well, you're very concerned about how our society is running itself into a free-for-all.  Imagine what the world would be like if every single human was a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College.  Ouch!  Too difficult, right?  Painful, right?  Yeah, baby, I feel the same way.  18-year-old kids have no idea how to "create" majors and such fluffy free-flowing touchy-feely approaches to indoctrination are breeding grounds for intellectual laziness.  You and I probably agree here.  But alas, that has nothing to do with gay marriage.  I think, and I could be way off base, that you see this as an extension of that same idea.  That it's all about what the definition of what "is" is.  I really don't.  I see the gay marriage dispute much like the interracial marriage dispute of the early 20th Century.  These people can't help being gay (although any listenener of NPR this fine morning would have heard otherwise, that the production of prostaglandins, which is inhibited by aspirin, for example, may have something to do with it, but that's a little beyond the scope of my current harangue) and therefore should be treated like any demographic:  Equally.  Can you marry any bimbo you want?  (provided she's not your sister, that is)  Well, I can too.  But then, the presupposition is that we want to marry chicks.  But what if we were into men.  Nice big strong hairy hard-pectoral barge-toting, bail-lifting fire-fighting macho men!  Well, what the .  Let 'em.  And it is here where we disagree.  I wasn't kidding about getting married in ten days.  And I wasn't kidding about wanting serious evidence that my heteromarriage will be somehow undermined by poofsters being legally wed.  You know, if we change our minds and want to split, we'll have to spend oodles of money and time and stress getting legally divorce.  Why shouldn't the butt-pirates and rug-munchers of the world be saddled with the same responsibilities (and rights!) as we have?

Oh, and I had about a half-bottle of Merlot with my lunch, so watch out  

[angus]

I still cant reconcile the Republican need to social engineer marraige

but totally against the social engineering of affirmative action and other democratic programs.

and totally against any restrictions on the ownership and use of guns

If you believe the people should be free to make their own choices and do what they please...they why step in here and legislate morality. And why limit it to one group? What is it about gay people that is such a clear and present danger? why do you hate them so much?

yeah, but democrats and republicans out here don't really have the hard in-your-face disagreements that they have back east.  You and I have a great deal more issue-agreemnet, for example than Nym90 and 8Iron.  It's been repeatedly pointed out how shallow we are.  If it hadn't been for that asshole Lincoln and the goddamned unionist republicans, we'd probably be forming our own little republic by now.  Wanna try it?  C'mon, let's really test Bush's resolve.  Whaddya ya say, hoss?

[angus]

If you believe the people should be free to make their own choices and do what they please...

"The people" have made a choice, and that choice is to define marriage in agreement with what Christianity teaches to be the definition of marriage.

Here they have.  (except Mayor Newsom)  I'm not sure whether the Texas legislature has though.  The problem in Massachusetts (if it's even a problem) is that "the people" chose not to deal with it, so a court dealt with it for them.  You have to wonder whether Alexander Hamilton wasn't right.  Given the choice, the people don't always make the right ones, but then that's how majority rule works.  If we're going to run the republic in a democratic fashion, we have to accept the consequences.  Will you?

[angus]

I agree that in the long term it will hurt the GOP if the party bosses want to pick up this cause.  But short term, opebo may just be right about the benefit of hammering these wedge issues into the ground.  Still, it seems so Nixonian.

[angus]

yeah, I was intrigued by a post made by the member formerly known as realpolitik.  Something like (and you know I never get direct quotes right), but something like, "There isn't a north/south difference between the political cultures in the US anymore.  The difference is East/West.  You'll see in a few years that difference will become more pronounced."  Of course, he didn't expound on it, and I didn't ask, at the time, but I remember thinking that same thing without prior consultation.  When the GOP gets its act together and becomes more of the pre-Nixon GOP, and when the dems get their act together and becomes the leftist organization that it was pre-Clinton, you'll see a Blue western half and Red eastern half of the country map, with the swing states in the middle, and won and lost on real economic issues (rather than the trivial wedge issues we bicker about now.)