Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[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?

[Nation]

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?

[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.

[California Dreamer]

why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Social engineering doesnt sound like somethign the party of 'personal freedom' should be getting involved in.


It certainly is more palatable than the 'its a sin' argument, but is just as fearfull and hatefull.


why do you people care so much what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes. How can the party of personal freedom and responsibility want to control laws and extend the 'nanny state' in order to engineer monogomy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, what I'm looking for is a rationale for the law.  Something which goes beyond just "God says don't do that"....why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Well, gee, I didn't know there was still a debate raging on the destruction to society caused by sexual immorality.  If you want a purely provable scientific argument, then:

Sexually immoral people (as defined by the bible as those having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman) are less healthy than those abiding by the rules of the bible; for it is an undisputable scientific fact that the sexually immoral have:
1) increased death rates caused by STD's.
2) increased infertility rates caused by STD's.
3) Lower self-esteem.
4) Higher rates of suicide.
5) Higher poverty rates.
6) Higher drop-out rates.

I am shocked that there is still even a debate regarding the provable health benefits of living by the word of God.

---

why do you people care so much what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes. How can the party of personal freedom and responsibility want to control laws and extend the 'nanny state' in order to engineer monogomy.

Because I care about the lives of people, I believe there is intrinsic worth in individuals; therefore, I rebuke, correct, and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction.

[Wakie]

why is it all these Republicans want to stop marraige because of theoritical effects on society.

Well, gee, I didn't know there was still a debate raging on the destruction to society caused by sexual immorality.  If you want a purely provable scientific argument, then:

Sexually immoral people (as defined by the bible as those having sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman) are less healthy than those abiding by the rules of the bible; for it is an undisputable scientific fact that the sexually immoral have:
1) increased death rates caused by STD's.
2) increased infertility rates caused by STD's.
3) Lower self-esteem.
4) Higher rates of suicide.
5) Higher poverty rates.
6) Higher drop-out rates.

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  Monogamous homosexual couples though actually tend to outperform monogamous heterosexual couples in these areas.  Nonetheless, a big part of marriage (whether it is heterosexual or homosexual) is monogamy.  Marriage promotes and encourages it.  There is something about the title ... the ceremony ... which reinforces to people that this is the person they will be with the rest of their life.  That, AND it adds a cost to cheating.

Realizing this, one would think you would be in favor of homosexual marriage.  People will be gay or straight regardless of legislation.  All we're talking about here is whether they can engage in an activity which will encourage them to be monogamous.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  

No, homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, regardless of how promiscuous.  Also, have you ever heard of a virgin gay wedding?

[migrendel]

Yes, I have Jmfcst. It was a white wedding, but judging by the physical appearance of the bride, I cannot be shocked about their virginity.

[Nym90]

Ouch....

[Wakie]

All of the above are true ... of people who are sexually adventurous.  

No, homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, regardless of how promiscuous.  Also, have you ever heard of a virgin gay wedding?

You know I never bother to ask the couple at a wedding about their sexual history.  And that includes both hetero and homo sexual couples.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, I have Jmfcst. It was a white wedding, but judging by the physical appearance of the bride, I cannot be shocked about their virginity.

Well, you know what they say is the source of virgin wool...ugly sheep.

[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.

[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?

[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  

[California Dreamer]

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?

[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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You know I never bother to ask the couple at a wedding about their sexual history.  And that includes both hetero and homo sexual couples.

I googled it, but I can't find any stats on the number of hetero-marriage that had virgin weddings.  But I have heard the percentage is around 40%.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[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?

[California Dreamer]

and the 'people' are against the silly ammendment.

And the long term trend in all polls is towards acceptance. I would bet any amount of money that within 10 years CA will reverse the vote it made years ago....and as Californica goes, so goes the rest of the country...eventually


...and if the rest of the country doesnt wise up...then we will form our own Republic...who needs ya

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and the 'people' are against the silly ammendment.

That's because most people don't want to bother with wading through the gutter.

---

And the long term trend in all polls is towards acceptance. I would bet any amount of money that within 10 years CA will reverse the vote it made years ago....and as Californica goes, so goes the rest of the country...eventually

Agreed, but that is not news.  The bible has already painted a picture of the end-times as being filled with homosexuality.

[Nym90]

Angus--

Good point about sharper disagreements in the East. I completely agree, the parties here in Michigan are probably more divided than in California. Though there are a lot of moderates in both parties still too, neither NineIron or myself are necessarily representative of our parties in Michigan.

Overall, in the Midwest, both parties are probably more socially conservative but more economically liberal than their California counterparts. Of the four basic regions of the country (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) the Northeast is the most liberal, the South the most conservative, the Midwest the most populist, and the West the most libertarian, I'd say.

[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.)