Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

angus,

I do disagree about federalism, I think national problems require antional solutions, just on principle.  Furthermore, deferring to the states on this particular issue is no solution at all, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause requries California to honor gay marriages conducted in Massachussetts, effectively neutralizing California's own laws.  The Defense Of Marraige Act currently subverts this contitutional clause.  The DOMA, in my view, is unconstitutional, and as soon as it is rightfully struck down (it is only a matter of time before it faces a serious challenge in the courts) the rights of states will be washed away.

We all need to accept that either a Constitutional Amendment be adopted as a national solution, or the national solution will for all intents and purposes be a national legalization of gay marriage, since all states will soon be forced to recognize the marriages performed is Massachussetts.

On the point about arranged marriage, we are always in a struggle to maintain a balance between liberty nd stability.  For conservatives, this is especially difficult, since we value both.  Liberals have an easier time, sicne they tend to value liberty much more.  I think the tradeoff when we as a society abandoned arranged marriage was worth it.  Even without arranged marriage, divorce rates remained low until the last thirty years or so.  The slight loss of stability was worth the massive gain in liberty.  However, the gain to be made by legalizing gay marriage seems very small and will only be experienced at all by a small sector of the population.  The loss, however, will be rather large, as divorce rates rise after having leveled off in the 1990s and children will then be more likely to be raised in single income households.  Its a tradeoff, as with most things, and I don't think it is worth it.

[The Duke]

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.

Huh? This is ridiculously funny. First of all, we don't have gay marriage in Sweden - yet. We will probably have it soon since all political parties except for the Christian Democrats are for it, as is 65% of the population, but right now we have civil unions.

Secondly, as to "out-of wedlock births, single parent families, and broken homes", it has nothing to do at all with gay marriage. It's about modern lifestyle - people change partners more often and don't want to tie themselves to somebody for the rest of their lifes.

First of all, there is almost no distinction between marriage and civil unions.  You have, in effect, legalized gay marrige by legalizing civil unions, it's the same thing.

In America, we also have a "modern" lifestyle.  The difference is that our illegitimacy rate is 22% lower than yours.  It is simply a denial of reality to say that a fundamental legal change in your definition of what a family is has had no impact on the behavior of Swedish families.

[The Duke]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

Nation is wrong about this issue, and here's why.

The increase in divorce rates didn't appear out of nowhere- it was the result of social and legal changes.  Things like unilateral divorce laws, no fault divorce laws, and a feminist ethic that derided marriage as a prison for women were the main causes.  It was not inevitable, and future erosions are not inevitable, either.

If the government got out of marraige entirely, things would no doubt get worse and fast.  For example, it is only by state law that polygamy is outlawed.  Not to pick on Mormons, but I'm quite sure that polygamy, a fairly oppressive social institution, would be brought back if we just left it all to these churches.  Gay marriage supporters would no doubt be thrilled at the clock being turned forward on that one issue, but they do not take into account all the ways that this proposal would turn the clock back.

I'm listening John D, but what else have you got for me besides polygamy? And it seems to be that gay marriage supporters would drop the argument if government wasn't involved.

There could be near total anarchy in the marriage arena.  Anyone could become "married" to almost anyone (or even anything) since the government couldn't tell them, "No stupid, you don't get to marry your cat!"  More common will be incestuous and polyamorous marriages, but interspecies marriage could actually happen.

Courts, when dealing with child custody issues, would still have to discern what constituted an immediate family.  They'd have little to go on, since they don't recognize marriages.  Today, marriage is still the legal core of the family.  If the government was not involved in marriage, it would become very difficult.

Issues would arise involving inheritances and next of kin (if the government doesn't recognize your marriage, your spouse would not have any survivors benefits).  If courts tried to go on church issued marriages for next of kin, the courts would have to pick and choose what "marriages" they recognized.  Someone could legally be married to two people because it is up to the churches who is and is not married, so who is the next of kin?

Secular people may want to get married, but not by any particular church.  Most secular people are married by a justice of the peace or a judge, but the government would not be involved in such things.  "By the power vested in me by the state of (insert state here), I now pronounce you..." wouldn't be true anymore.  There is no such power vested in them.  So secular folk who want to marry would find some friend or something to marry them, and courts deciding custody cases would have difficulty dealing with weddings performed by a guy off the street.

Divorce would become messy.  Churches may grant divorces, but again, what of those who are unaffiliated?  Who is to settle such a dispute?  Today, the government does, but if the state is not involved with marriages, who will settle the dispute?

The government must be involved with marriage.  They must define it, litigate disputes within it, and set the rules for ending it.  Otherwise, we will have a libertarian anarchy.

[The Duke]

(yawn)

I thought there might be a serious discussion going on here.  Guess not.

I thought angus, nation, and I were having a pretty serious discussion about the issues.  I haven't really been following the discussion between Dreamer and jmf, but they seem to be taking it seriously.

[The Duke]

I would still hold true to my other argument that it was not, and will not be same-sex marriage that causes further deterioration of regular marriage. Would you agree to that?

I don't really agree, I think changes in the legal definition of marriage will inevitably change people's behavior within and towards the institution of marriage.

[The Duke]

I oppose gay marriage because of what happened in Sweden. The divorce rate went out of the roof as did births out of wedlock. The Swiss Government blamed gay marriage for their problems with marraige.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. You know, you should really tell us Swedes about it, since I never read or heard this anywhere from anyone. It is even more interesting considering the fact that we haven't even introduced gay marriage yet...

You did legalize Civil Unions, which is the same thing.  lidaker tried to point this same thing out to me earlier, playing semantics, but the fact remains that you guys have damaged your society by changing age old institutions.  Divorce rates are up, so are out of wedlock birhts, and so are the rates of children in single parent families.

[The Duke]

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?

[The Duke]

John D, I don't think people will actually make this logical connection in their head that since now gays can marry, then they can start having children all the time outside of marriage, since it'll be the norm.

People are already doing that, and have been doing it. Why would legalizing gay marriage (or at least civil unions) make this any worse?

Either surrogate parents will become an institution within marriage, or marriage and child rearing will no longer be connected.  Either way, there is a problem.  I have already explained the problem with the latter.  The problem with the former is that it undermines monogamy as a critical aspect of marriage.  An occaisonal couple who needs a sperm donor does not do this since sperm donors are not an inherent institutional part of traditional marriage, but it would be exactly that in the case of gay marriage.  Here is an actual example from Canada.

A lesbian couple in Ontario asked a friend to be the biological father of their child.  Now, the two women and the sperm donor are petitioning the court to allow the three of them to be recognized as parents.  The judge has even sided with the plaintiffs, though his decision is pending.  He said, "I can't imagine a stronger case for seeking the order you are seeking."  A three-parent family would be the end of marriage, as it has been known by the modern world.  It directly relates to the earlier point regarding polygamy.  If anyone wants to know how the libertarian argument for gay marriage will lead from gay marriage to polygamous or incestuous marriage, here are the mechanics of how it would work.  This is no distant possibility; it is very real and very immediate.

There are other way that monogamy is threatened by gay marriage.

Monogamy is important because the notion of monogamy forms a bond between people in a family.  It builds stability and discipline in children to see that their parents behave in a way that is becoming of adults who must carry great responsibility.  Will gay marriages be as monogamous as traditional marriage?  The answer is no.  This is not a mere stereotype; it is supported by statistical evidence.  In 1998, sociologist Gretchen Steirs, an open lesbian and self-described "queer theorist" did a study called "From This Day Forward" on monogamy in gay versus straight relationships.  Her results are startling.  She focused on men and women who had been "united" in a commitment ceremony.  Nearly 20% of these men said the person they were "united" to was not their only partner at that time.  Only 10% of gay men in the survey said that monogamy was an important aspect of commitment.  This, the vanguard of committed relationships in the gay community does not ease fears that gay unions would undermine monogamy.

Another study from Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, two University of Vermont Psychologists surveyed all 2,300 couples that entered civil unions in Vermont during the first 13 months that the law was in effect (June 1, 2000-June 30, 2001).  Only 50% of gay men in civil unions said that monogamy was an important part of marriage.  Only 34% of gay men outside a civil union said the same.  Compare that with married heterosexual men in the survey, 79% of whom said that monogamy is an important part of marriage.  It is not myth or stereotype that monogamy is less important to gay men than heterosexual men.  This does not mean that gays are bad people, but it does mean that a group of people who do not value monogamy would weaken the link between monogamy and marriage that helps sustain marriage as an institution.

Proponents of gay marriage point out that these numbers are unfair.  The people surveyed are not married, they are just in civil unions, which is different.  On the surface, this point seems reasonable, but that notion is quickly dispelled on further analysis.  The majority of those in civil unions in Vermont are not Vermonters, as the survey points out.  This means that most of the couples surveyed traveled hundreds, maybe thousands of miles to engage in civil unions even when federal law (The Defense of Marriage Act) prohibits their home state from honoring their union.  In other words, these are among the most dedicated, committed gay couples in America, and they still put a significantly lower value on monogamy.

At some point, the proponents of gay marriage will have to acknowledge that gay relationships aren't the same as heterosexual relationships.  This doesn't make then inferior or immoral, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept homosexuals who are friends or family members.  What it does mean is that including them as equal partners in the isntitution of marriage is bad social policy.

[The Duke]

I didn't say you called me a homophobe, I specifically said the opposite.  You neither called me a homophobe nor a religious zealot, the two most common slanders against opponents of gay marriage.

Since you aren't implying either of those things, what exactly IS the deep seeded mental pathology that compels me to discard reason and rational thought in favor of an emotion-based position?

[The Duke]

The point on popular opinion is still invalid. The whole point of laws is to protect the minority from majority opression, once again something that Republicans of all people should be understanding of.

On Sweden, I once again thank those who point out our national crisis. I was not at all aware of the sharp increase in divorces since we legalized civil unions, what was it (Lidaker?) a year ago or so? I do know that the yuong generation is the most religious and valueing of morals in decades, but I guess that doesn't fit your prejudice. But I have felt a little less moral since we allowed gays to engage in civil unions, I guess it works like a plague or something...

Over half of first born children in Sweden are born out of wedlock.  Sweden has a problem.

[The Duke]

NO, only in three countries that recognize either gay marriage or civil unions (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) have had rapidly rising illegitimacy rates.  Finland has no such problem.

[The Duke]

The rate of first born children being born out of wedlock is up 5% since civil unions were legalized.  You can judge for yourself whether that is a sharp increase or a minor one.  What isn't subjective is whether the rate of illegitimacy is higher or not.  It is higher, check with Eurostat, they have a website and they are a demographics organization run by the EU.

[The Duke]

a demographics organization run by the EU.

Need I say more?

?

[The Duke]

My question:

IF YOUR NEIGHBOR IS GAY, AND HE MARRIES ANOTHER GAY PERSON, HOW DOES THAT HARM YOU?

Since no one else will answer, I will.

Let us say that I have a wife and two children.  Let us say that one day, a perfectly normal, quite nice gay couple moves in next door.  They do not molest children or have orgy parties late at night.  They are for all intents and purposes just like a normal couple, only gay.  Where is the harm?

Well, here it is.  Because my chidren will observe this gay couple, they will presume that the behavior of this couple is normal.  Perhaps, they will think it is so normal that they will try this behavior out.  All of a sudden, I don't get grand kids.

This is not the worst thing that could happen though.  Worse would be that my children would see this gay couple and decide that the old definition of marriage that me and my wife live by is outdated, and the new gay married couple is the way to go in the future.  This is a problem, because there is really not much of a reason for the gay couple to get married except to legitimize their relationship in the eyes of society.  They can be in love without getting married.  In other words, marriage doesn't seem relevant to my kids.  So, my kids don't actually get married, they have live in girlfriends or boyfriends.  My daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock, and her baby's daddy does not stick around to raise Jr. since their is no legal contract that binds him to stay.  My son never feels a social pressure to enter a commited relationship, so he bounces from one night stand to one night stand, terribly unfulfilled in his meaningless bachelor's life.

Will I be hurt?  Maybe not directly, but my kids will.  And at that point in my life, that will be more important anyway.

[The Duke]

afleitch,

All people learn from all that is around them.  It is not reasonable to expect me to seal my children off from any and all things that I do not want them to learn from.

[The Duke]

Well you see theres your problem. You cant shield them. They could be taught at school by a lesbian, could have their arm put in a cast by a gay doctor, or they could drive the ambulance that takes them to hospital. You wouldn't know. The vast majority of gay men and women simply knuckle down and get on with their lives and interact with everyone elses. In the UK a gay man is the junior Minister for Education, and Tony Blair think's he's doing a damn fine job. A lesbian actress voiced a fish in Finding Nemo for heavens sake! And me? I want to teach History, a subject I love to children and teenagers, and yes I'm gay. Shelter your children if you wish, but if they rebel or become 'immoral' in your view, you will have nothing to blame but your own parenting.

They can't be sheltered rom knowing homosexuals, but we can teach them what kind of behavior is expected from them regarding marriage.  Legalizing gay marriage undermines our ability to do that.  If they are taught at school by a lesbian, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.  If the have a gy doctor, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.  If prominent government officials are gay, they don't necessarily have their idea of marriage redefined as legalizing gay marriage would do.

One of my favorite US congressmen, Jim Kolbe, is gay.  One of my favorite radio hosts, Al Rantel, is gay.  I would not consider these people to be subversive because they don't try and redefine social institutions to suit their personal lifestyle.  As long as we don't blur the distinctions between groups.  I am what I am, they are what they are, and we don't pretend to be the same.  This makes normal interaction different from radical social revolution.

[The Duke]

Dibble,

You missed the point entirely.  The point is not that I don't want my kids to know about homosexuality, its that they need to understand that it isn't the same as a normal relationship.  Redefining marriage in legal terms will make that a pretty tough sell.

[The Duke]

Independent does not necessarily mean centrist.

[The Duke]

If you want to talk about hubris, lets talk about the hubris of people who want to change fundamental social institutions to suit their own personal life choices, and have no regard for the wishes of their fellow citizens.

[The Duke]

Do any foreign countries have pro-gay marriage laws?

Sweden, Norway, and Denamrk all have Civil Unions.  And what do you know, in all instances, immediately after they changed the law, out-of-wedlock births shot up.

[The Duke]

Do any foreign countries have pro-gay marriage laws?

The Netherlands I believe.

if you look at the Netherlands standar of living (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nl.html) and compare it to the US's standard of living (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html), the netherlands is superior in the majority of significant categories. And this is from a US biased site, too!

I don't see a significant advantage for the Netherlands in standard of living.  We have a higher per capita GDP by a margin of $10,000 or so.

If I remeber correctly, under the HDI measurement, the Netherlands IS higher than the US, but this was true before gay marriage was legalized there, so I'm not sure what your point is.