The debate over this amendment rages across the country and here at this blog. Much of the discussion is positive in nature, however many on both sides resort to frustration and name-calling. I wanted to outline my thoughts on this issue, which will probably anger everyone and leave me defending myself from both sides.
The data that we have demonstrates that as a whole gay couples do not want to get married. Because other nations and Massachusetts have recognized same-sex marriages we can evaluate the statistics and see that the vast majority of gay partners have no interest in the institution of marriage even when it is available to them.
In the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize same-sex unions in 2001, between 2.6 and 6.3 percent of gay people have been married. Belgium followed in 2003 and has seen between 1.9 and 4.7 percent married. Even in North America, the numbers have been very low. Since 2003 in British Columbia, Canada, the numbers are between 2.8 and 14.3 percent. The stats are not much different in Massachusetts – 5.9 and 16.7 percent.
Recognition of gay marriage will not destroy marriage, but it will be one of many factors that have led and will lead to the weakening of the institution. Both sides exaggerate their claims in order to push their agenda.
As a whole, marriage has been on a decline in our nation for over 50 years. In the 1990’s it stabalized after a volitale period of change. In the 1970’s and 80’s divorce rates, seperations and those not marrying skyrocketed. The numbers even doubled in some age groups.
Americans are now less likely to marry. There has been a decline of more than 40 percent, from 1970 to 2002, in the annual number of marriages per 1000 unmarried adult women. Since 1960, those married among all persons age 15 and older has declined 12 percent.
Gay marriage will not be the reason marriage fails. It cannot be held responsible for the decline of previous decades. However, it can be another factor in a long line of our society undermining the institution. It will simply be another straw on the already weak back of marriage. Another telling factor is that many of the same groups that argued for the liberalization of marriage and the increased ease of divorces are the same ones pointing out how bad marriage is now, as if they had no hand in creating the problem.
Evaluating the data from the Netherlands we can see that the decline of marriage was acclerated by the adoption of gay marriage. In the ten years since the recognition, the percentage of children born in single parent homes has steadily increased three percent. From 1992 to 2002 we see a similar steady drop in the overall percentage of married people in the population. While, again the percentage of divorced people has risen consistent with the other trends. The number of out-of-wedlock births more than doubled. In all but one age group the number of abortions increased, including an almost 20% jump for teenagers. More women in every educational level indicated that they would not have children.
The Netherlands had a domestic partnership law before they legalized gay marriage. Once marriage became open the government decided to allow couples to move basically as they please from one status to another. While the number of gay couples filing for the domestic partnership has declined, the number of straight couples has quadrupled (from just under 2,000 to well over 7,000).
This also allowed couples to get “flash annulments” because they could downgrade from marriage to partnership and then to nothing with little or not effort, avoiding the paperwork of a normal divorce. Over 4,000 did this the first year it was available. When all of these laws were finalized, Netherlands saw a sizeable increase in heterosexual marriage dissolutions.
A strong institution of marriage benefits society. Children that come from a home with both a father and mother have huge statistical advantages over other children. They are 44 percent less likely to be physically abused, 47 percent less likely to suffer physical neglect, 43 percent less likely to suffer emotional neglect, and 55 percent less likely to suffer some form of child abuse.
Children in two-parent homes are less than half as likely as children in single-parent families to have emotional or behavioral problems. And children who live with biological or adoptive parents are about a third as likely as those living with single parents to use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In addition, boys raised with two parents are about half as likely to commit a crime leading to incarceration by their early 30s.
Those living with their two married parents through age 16 have higher grades, higher college aspirations, and better attendance records than children in one-parent families or who experience family disruption. They also are half as likely to drop out of high school.
Not only do strong marriages benefit children, they benefit the parents as well. Studies show that wives are 30 percent more likely to rate their health excellent or good than single women of the same age. In addition, married women (and men) are less likely to suffer long-term chronic illness or disabilities than single women. And mortality rates are less than one-third as high among married women as among non-married women.
Women gain financially as well–marriage increases income by 50 percent for women (25 percent for men)–and domestic violence rates decrease substantially. Married women are far less likely to be victims of intimate-partner violence than divorced, separated, or never-married women. The rate per thousand for divorced or separated women is 31.9; never married women, 11.3; married women, just 2.6.
Two-parent families are five times less likely to be in poverty than single-parent families. Single men have almost six times the probability of being incarcerated as married men, and men who live with their biological children are more involved in the community and service organizations, more connected to their own siblings, adult children, and aging parents. Men who are married earn 10 to 40 percent more than single men of the same age.
The benefits of a stable marriage last through out one’s life. A retirement study demonstrated that someone who remained married continuously had significantly higher wealth (74%) than those who did not marry or who did not stay married.
As a whole marriage benefits the society in which we live. Communities with more married couples are safer because the crime rate is lower, due to the decrease in risk factors among the young people. Marriage helps people move out of poverty and welfare dependency. Overall, married people are more likely to be healthy, productive and engaged citizens benefiting employeers and the economy.
Marriages that end in divorce also are very costly to the public. One researcher determined that a single divorce costs state and federal governments about $30,000, based on such things as the higher use of food stamps and public housing as well as increased bankruptcies and juvenile delinquency. The nation’s 10.4 million divorces in 2002 are estimated to have cost the taxpayers more than $30 billion.
Both parties are trying to use the FMA as an appeal to their base. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of using the institution of marriage as political football. The GOP did not seriously push this amendment. They simply wanted to place a check mark beside their conservative to-do-list.
This type of issue is best left to voters of individual states, not a constitutional amendment and not a judicial fiat. I am very hesitant about amending the Constitution, but I am also weary of voters passing legitimate laws and courts deciding they don’t like them. If the people of Massachusetts want to have gay marriage, I may disagree with them, but I wouldn’t stop them. But if a guy in a black robe decides he wants to force gay marriage on Massachusetts I do have a problem with that.
The institution of marriage predates our nation, our society and our culture. Just because we decide today that we want to expand the definition of marriage does not mean we have that right. Marriage has been around for centuries (since the beginning according to Judeo-Christian beliefs) and is not an institution that can (or should) be changed on a cultural whim.
Yes, I know that polygomy has been around almost as long as marriage, but the very fact that we define it differently shows something. Also, I know (I may be wrong) of no significant culture which elevated polygomy as the equal of one man/one woman marriage. They may have allowed it or even accepted it, but they did not recognize it as being as beneficial as traditional marriage.
The statistics hold this as true. The benefits mentioned early for marriage do not equate with polygomy. In many cases polygomy increases the liklihood of child and spousal abuse. Clearly, the women and children do not receive the same benefits from this type of “marriage.” It is unclear if the man receives the same benefits either.
Conservatives over state their case when they point to state amendments and equate those numbers with the FMA debate. While it can be argued that the vast majority of Americans want marriage to remain the same, it cannot be argued that the vote percentages in the state can be transferred to the current debate over a national amendment.
The most recent figures I have heard was that 50% support the FMA, while 46% oppose it. That is a plurality, but not the 70% majority that many conservative speakers claim. People like me would support a state amendment, in most cases, but would be cautious about a national amendment.
Christians have done a horrible job in protecting marriage and showing love to gay people. Christians have allowed divorce to rip apart at marriage for years, without much attempt to change it. We have hide from preaching against divorce in our pulpits because too many members might get upset. But oh those evil gays – we feel fine preaching against a sin that at most impacts 5% of the population, probably less among people who attend church.
Too many Christians, did nothing to minister or even comfort those affected by AIDS. Even worse some cheered the disease because it killed gay people. That is disgusting and has no place within the body of Christ.
While many will never comprehend that it is possible to love someone within loving their sexual orientation, we still should treat them as we would anyone, if not better. We should go out of our way to demonstrate the love that Christ has for them.
My personal opinion: This may change next year or even next hour, but as of now this is how I would deal with the issue of gay marriage. I would strengthen DOMA, while allowing states to decide on their own. At the same time I would encourage states to preserve the institution of marriage as the traditional definition. I would also encourage states desiring to change marriage to try civil unions first. I would encourage all states to allow couples of any kind (gay couples, sisters living together, lifelong friends) to go through some type of process which allows more rights for the two of them (visitation, inheritance, etc.)
Would this solve all the problems? No, I don’t think we can come up with any solution that everyone will agree on. I think people are entrenched in this debate and unlikely to move much. But I also think that both sides (can) make legitimate arguments without resorting to describing the other side as wanting to destroy marriage or as hate-filled bigots. You may hold that opinion, but it is clear the vast majority of people opposed to you do not fit your ill conceived stereotypes.
So as of now, those are my thoughts. Let the ripping from both sides begin.
[Ed. Many have taken this as my support for gay marriage. Let me be clear. It is not. Christians should support traditional marriage in every way possible. My argument is that sometimes the best is not politically feasible. If we cannot get a state to maintain traditional marriage alone, I would recommend them do something less drastic as changing the definition of marriage. I hold a similar view as Dr. Dobson does. He supported a bill in Colorado that would give benefits (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) to any two people in a relationship. The bill does not discriminate (only give benefits to gay couples), but allows for a widow to extend rights to her sister-in-law who moves in with her to help raise the children or other situations.That’s not to say that all conservatives agree with this. Dobson caught some flak for this stance. As I said in the original post, my stance on how best to specifically protect marriage may change, since this post I am more in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment because of the direction our culture is headed. For more of an explanation click here.]
I'm not going to respond to all of this, because it is too long. I will, not surprisingly, make two points.
1. It is all well and good to talk about ideal situations for children. For instance, it is ideal that children grow up with parents who make enough money to handle any situation that might develop. Aaron, both you and I would fail in this regard, since we're objectively poor.
However, does it really make any sense to talk about ideally when ideally is neither occurring nor likely to occur? Shouldn't we be talking about what's best for the children in a realistic sense? And isn't – for instance – getting a child without parents to a loving, adoptive gay couple better than letting that child rot in the state sponsored care?
2. Gay couples are NOT the equivalent to sisters living together. Gay couples are exactly equal to you and your wife. This is one of those instances, and Seeker is far more guilty of it than you Aaron, when your view of gay relationships sneaks to the surface. I have never met gay couples and thought, "Gosh, they're like brothers." Gay couples are exactly the same as straight couples, regardless of how much you might like to disagree.
I realize this is extremely long – longer than most of my other posts – but these are simply the thoughts going through my head and I wanted to get them out in one place, so they would not be mischaracterised by anyone on either side.
Oh, I don't think gay couples are like sisters living together, but I would extend rights such as those I mentioned to the groups I mentioned including gay couples and sisters living together. That does not mean I equate the relationships, clearly they are vastly different.
As to the ideal thing – every child may not have the ideal situation, but that does not mean let's throw out the best thing because some kids don't have that. Why not strive to make every kid have the best thing.
One of the reasons children "rot in the state sponsored care" is because the decline of marriage. I don't think further weakening of the institution by redefinition will help in the long run.
A few more gay couples may adopt kids that wouldn't otherwise be adopted, but evaluating the statistics from other countries two things pop out. 1) Gays do not rush to get married (for whatever reason) and provide the stable home environment the kids need. 2) With marriage weakening more and more children will be in state care because of divorce, abuse, etc.
As to our children not being raised in the ideal situation, that may be the case. (I am not willing to grant that financial status is as important as relationship status.) But the stronger marriages are in general, couples have more wealth and fewer children are in poverty.
You automatically assume that by allowing committed couples to marry, that you'll weaken the institution of marriage? Why is that? Why would allowing committed couples who love one another to marry damage the institution?
Finally, if it comes down to children, do you support allowing older couples away from their child having years to get married? Shouldn't they lose their right to marriage since no children will be involved? And, for that matter, sterile people?
You automatically assume that by allowing committed couples to marry, that you'll weaken the institution of marriage? Why is that?
Because there is a significant impact on society when we change from a government-neutral position to one of advocacy.
Nobody is advocating anything. They are simply allowing gay couples the same rights that you share with your wife. As we have established, there is nothing wrong with that.
> The data that we have demonstrates that as a whole
> gay couples do not want to get married.
This is not an argument for banning gay marriage. If anything, it mitigates *against* banning it (“Not many will want to anyway, so it won’t have that large of an effect on anything else …”).
> In the Netherlands, … between 2.6 and 6.3 percent
> of gay people have been married. Belgium … has seen
> between 1.9 and 4.7 percent married. Even … Canada,
> … between 2.8 and 14.3 percent. The stats are not
> much different in Massachusetts – 5.9 and 16.7
> percent.
What percentage of straight people get married? Are these low numbers a result, to some degree, of society’s general declining interest in marriage? Is it the result, to some degree, of society’s bigotry towards gay people, in the sense that if you grow up thinking that marriage isn’t an option for you, just how attached to the idea of getting married are you going to be?
> As a whole, marriage has been on a decline in our
> nation for over 50 years. In the 1990’s it stabalized
> after a volitale period of change. In the 1970’s and
> 80’s divorce rates, seperations and those not marrying
> skyrocketed. The numbers even doubled in some age
> groups. Americans are now less likely to marry. There
> has been a decline of more than 40 percent …
What effect has this had on cultural perceptions of marriage, and the desirability of getting married in the first place? How many children of divorce have been left with a bad taste concerning marriage in general? And isn’t it interesting that, once cultural norms no longer *required* a person to get married in order to be seen as “respectable,” all of a sudden *no one* was as interested in getting married anymore …
> Gay marriage … However, it … be another factor in
> a long line of our society undermining the
> institution [of marriage].
So, other parts of “our society” (other than the gay parts) are responsible, too … and were responsible *first* … maybe we should outlaw divorce? Or require everyone to be married by age 21?
> Evaluating the data from the Netherlands we can see
> that the decline of marriage was acclerated by the
> adoption of gay marriage … the percentage of
> children born in single parent homes has steadily
> increased … we see a similar steady drop in the
> overall percentage of married people … The number of
> out-of-wedlock births more than doubled … the
> number of abortions increased, including an almost 20%
> jump for teenagers. More women in every educational
> level indicated that they would not have children.
OK, two points here: 1. None of these statistics point to a causal role of gay marriage, that is, the co-incidence of these trends does not in any way indicate the *cause* of one being the other. So, all of this “bad” stuff is happening at the same time as gay marriage being “accepted,” but that doesn’t mean that gay marriage is the *cause* of any of it. And 2. All of this could easily be interpreted as the institution of marriage failing–it had its day, but that day is over.
> The Netherlands had a domestic partnership law before
> they legalized gay marriage. Once marriage became open
> the government decided to allow couples to move
> basically as they please from one status to another
> … When all of these laws were finalized, Netherlands
> saw a sizeable increase in heterosexual marriage
> dissolutions.
So, allowing domestic partnerships led to an increase in “divorces” … What does this have to do with gay marriage? Oh, I see, “… once marriage became open …” Huh? How do you get from “domestic partnership” to “open marriage”? So, what you’re really saying is, “Once governments made it easier for people to get divorced, the divorce rate went up.” Um, what does this have to do with gay marriage? If anything, this an argument *for* gay amrriage (as opposed to domestic/civil partnerships). Heck, let’s let ’em get married, and let’s make it really hard for *anyone* to get divorced … (so much for freedom, etc).
> A strong institution of marriage benefits society.
So let’s *extend* it to cover *more* of society, if it’s so good for everyone …
> Children that come from a home with both a father and
> mother have huge statistical advantages over other
> children. They are 44 percent less likely to be
> physically abused, 47 percent less likely to suffer
> physical neglect, 43 percent less likely to suffer
> emotional neglect, and 55 percent less likely to
> suffer some form of child abuse.
>
> Children in two-parent homes are less than half as
> likely as children in single-parent families to have
> emotional or behavioral problems. And children who
> live with biological or adoptive parents are about a
> third as likely as those living with single parents to
> use illegal drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In addition,
> boys raised with two parents are about half as likely
> to commit a crime leading to incarceration by their
> early 30s.
>
> Those living with their two married parents through
> age 16 have higher grades, higher college aspirations,
> and better attendance records than children in
> one-parent families or who experience family
> disruption. They also are half as likely to drop out
> of high school.
OK, let’s assume this is all true and accurate … How much of this has to do with economic realities, rather than than the gender of the parents? (Maybe we should outlaw having children unless you can afford to have children.) Are we sure that these statistics aren’t true for *all two-parent households,* regardless of whether or not there is a male and a female? And what does this mean we should do with all of those children who live with only one parent, be it a mother or a father? What about foster children? If anything, these statistics are an argument *for* gay marriage, in that at least those kids will have *two* parents at home (and we can see that is much better than just having one …)
> Women gain financially as well–marriage increases
> income by 50 percent for women (25 percent for men)
Aside from what this says about us as a society, two women marrying will still increase their incomes by 25% each, and two men marrying will actually be better off than if they had married a woman (50% each)!!
> Married women are far less likely to be victims of
> intimate-partner violence than divorced, separated, or
> never-married women. The rate per thousand for
> divorced or separated women is 31.9; never married
> women, 11.3; married women, just 2.6.
Another up-side to allowing gay *marriage* …
> Two-parent families are five times less likely to be
> in poverty than single-parent families. Single men
> have almost six times the probability of being
> incarcerated as married men … Men who are married
> earn 10 to 40 percent more than single men of the same
> age.
More evidence suggesting that we should *allow* gay marriage …
> The institution of marriage predates our nation, our
> society and our culture. Just because we decide today
> that we want to expand the definition of marriage does
> not mean we have that right.
If *we* don’t have that RIGHT, then who does? Marriage used to include bigamous relationships–who decided to end that? “We” did. Divorce used to be impossible. Who decided to change that? “We” did. Marriage didn’t always come with an assumption of fidelity (at least not on the part of the male). Who changed that? We did …
> Marriage has been around for centuries (since the
> beginning according to Judeo-Christian beliefs) and is
> not an institution that can (or should) be changed on
> a cultural whim.
Since when did marriage become a Judeo-Christian phenomenon? As far as I know, Buddhists and Muslims get married, too … and even the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage has changed considerably over the centuries. And who says that millions of people wanting to be treated as equals within the bounds of a shared society and culture are xhanging anything “on a whim?!”
> Yes, I know that polygomy has been around almost as
> long as marriage, but the very fact that we define it
> differently shows something.
We define it differently now, but it hasn’t always been that way. Someone must have changed it on a whim (sorry, couldn’t resist :).
> Also, I know (I may be wrong) of no significant
> culture which elevated polygomy as the equal of one
> man/one woman marriage. They may have allowed it or
> even accepted it, but they did not recognize it as
> being as beneficial as traditional marriage.
Um, no. Having more than wife was a sign of status. It was revered. Only the richest men and kings had more than one wife. And the whole idea of “one man/one woman” is a relatively recent thing … certainly not “traditional” in the sense of Abraham and Isaac, David and Solomon.
> In many cases polygomy increases the liklihood of
> child and spousal abuse.
I know a few Mormons who would disagree with you …
> While it can be argued that the vast majority of
> Americans want marriage to remain the same
Which is certainly true, but that’s no argument for the “rightness” of “traditional” marriage. Think about the role of women, slavery, etc. At some point, a majority would have wanted these “institutions” to stay the same, too.
> I would encourage all states to allow couples of any
> kind (gay couples, sisters living together, lifelong
> friends) to go through some type of process which
> allows more rights for the two of them (visitation,
> inheritance, etc.)
Yes!!
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to attempt to rebut some of your arguments! It’s very much appreciated!
Partly because of the statistics I cited above, as to why I believe it will weaken the institution. I don't view it as completely causal, but I think it plays a role per the stats from the Netherlands and other areas with gay marriage.
As to children, I never said they were the end all, be all of this debate. In general, stronger marriages benefit society, even if those marriages do not have children.
But younger sterile couples can adopt and remove children from the "rot" you cited earlier, if we want to get back to children.
A strong institution of marriage benefits all of society in many different ways, especially for the families involved in it. If it can be proven through the emperical data from other nations that gay marriage will help or at least have a neutral impact on the institution, then I will be a good deal closer to your opinion than I am now.
My above comment was to Sam.
As I struggled to post my own thoughts, I struggle to go back through and re-argue each one that Ward argued against. Although I do appreciate his efforts and did read his comments.
But I will offer a couple of clarifications.
I never said that gay marriage was the cause of all the negative things happening to marriage, in fact I said basically the opposite. But just as I cannot say it is the sole reason for the decline, you cannot say it played no role in the continuing decline. It appears to be another factor in a long line of factors as to why marriage declines in a society.
We can also know that all of the family/child statistics are limited to male/female households because the surveys indicate it. Also, we don't have gay marriage or gay adoption on any type of statistical scale now, so it wouldn't play into this study. I would not want to post tons more research, but it is a given that children fare better when they have both a mother and a father because of the different type of relationship they have with each one. This dynamic would not be present in same-sex households.
I did not say that marriage was only a "Judeo-Christian phenomenon." I said that according to that belief system marriage has been around since the beginning.
Also, it is odd that you cite "Abraham and Isaac, David and Solomon" when I mention the negatives of polygomy, since each one of them according to the Bible suffered because of their multiple marriages. Because the Bible records activities does not mean the Bible endorses activities – I think polygomy will fall under that category. But if you want to use the Bible in your defense – as I mentioned, according to it one man/one woman marriage is foundational to human beings and is as old as we are. It predates the concept of polygomy by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Aaron wrote:
"Not only do strong marriages benefit children, they benefit the parents as well. Studies show that wives are 30 percent more likely to rate their health excellent or good than single women of the same age. In addition, married women (and men) are less likely to suffer long-term chronic illness or disabilities than single women. And mortality rates are less than one-third as high among married women as among non-married women."
and…
"The benefits of a stable marriage last through out one's life. A retirement study demonstrated that someone who remained married continuously had significantly higher wealth (74%) than those who did not marry or who did not stay married.
"As a whole marriage benefits the society in which we live. Communities with more married couples are safer because the crime rate is lower, due to the decrease in risk factors among the young people. Marriage helps people move out of poverty and welfare dependency. Overall, married people are more likely to be healthy, productive and engaged citizens benefiting employeers and the economy."
And yet he would still deny it to gay people, citing spurious data and arguments (which boil down to, "it's always been this way so it always has to be this way", and "God says so"). No wonder I get so bitter and angry at religionists. You admit the beneficial aspects of matrimony and still would deny it to us. seeker defined "hate" as "wishing harm on someone." Well, your continued disapproval of gay marriage and advocacy of anti-gay marriage amendments does us harm. Your protestations of "love" fall on deaf ears for we see it as mere hypocrisy. You are bigots and hatemongers.
I'm tired of being a second-class citizen. Maybe this country should be honest for a change and enact the anti-gay amendment. Then, it'll declare to the world its homophobic intentions. Ah, the joys of democracy! "Activist judges," charged with protecting the minority from majority abuse, will be put down, and the will of the christian majority will rule! Next will be reinstitution of anti-sodomy laws and anti-gay statutes throughout the bible belt. After all, "sin" must be repressed and children protected.
Sullivan printed a letter from a gay reader today. I think it worth pondering:
"Marriage is absolutely nothing like being partners/boyfriends/lovers. It is so incredibly richer than I ever imagined it could be. Even though our marriage is Canadian and isn't recognized in the U.S., it is recognized by our families and friends and coworkers, and most importantly by us. You have no idea the treasure that has been kept from gays and lesbians because we haven't been able to marry. It isn't just a one-time act in front of an audience, it is a life-altering event joining two people as one."
What Aaron and seeker and the rest forget is that we are people just like them. Instead, they see us as "disordered" or "sinful" or "perverted," anything but human. No wonder I hate you all.
Louis, as usually you misstate and mischaracterize or even lie about my statements to fit the stereotype that Andrew Sullivan presents to you.
Not once in my post did you see me citing my Christian morality as a reason why you or any other gay person should not get married. You either did not read my post or you blatently lied to fit your characature of me and Christians in general.
You again state for me my "advocacy" of the FMA, which I do not really do not support, much less am I advocating for it.
I won't even get into the lunacy of you thought process that leads you to believe anti-sodomy laws would be enforced. They were on the books for years and only this one instance in Texas ever happened in decades. I think they are stupid laws and should not be on the books are put back in the books. But again, I'm sure you don't believe that. I must be talking a Christian code language that actually means I want to enslave all the gay people. Is that what Sullivan is saying this week?
I actually find that email from Sullivan very moving, but what prevents that person from having the same thing from a ceremony in a church that recognizes same-sex unions. They state the most important thing is that their friends, family and they recognize it and that is what really matters – then why this whole debate. If all that matters is that those around you recognize and appreciate the relationship, why do you need the federal government to give it the "MARRIAGE" stamp?
As to you stating, again for me, my believe that you are "anything but human." You could not be further from the truth and I think deep down you know that. You know I have never said anything to you to indicate that I think you are someone unhuman. I have never said you are any less human because you are gay or for any other reason. You are inviting that out of thin air.
Even if I called you "disordered," "sinful" and "perverted" in one fell swoop, which I haven't, would not deny your humanity. Those are part of being human. I qualify for those myself if I want to be honest about things.
Despite what you and Sam and Cineaste and Ward and anyone else think – the very heart of the Christian message is that everyone is a sinner, that is a fact of humanity, but that God loves each of us and desires a relationship with us. Paul, the first missionary, called himself the chief of sinners. Sinfulness is not a reason why someone isn't human, it is an indication they are human.
it's always been this way so it always has to be this way", and "God says so").
I agree, these are not good reasons for public policy. As I have stated, in the public policy arena, you must appeal to ethics and natural law. I admit that the case against gay marriage from these perspectives is not as compelling as I would like, but I don't think the case FOR government sanction of gay marriage is compelling either, which is why I call for government neutrality.
The main reason most people object to it is because it appears against the intended design of male and female, and of the healthy, balanced family that includes both male and female at the helm.
The additional *scientific* stats that show that homosexuality is associated with a much lower rate of fidelity and higher rates of other mental disorders means that we should not rush to condone it, but leave it open to investigation.
Nobody is advocating anything. They are simply allowing gay couples the same rights that you share with your wife. As we have established, there is nothing wrong with that.
Well, I'm glad to find that you are not advocating government approval of gay marriages like I thought. Istead, you are pushing for legislation to sanction gay marriage. Yeah, that's different.
You have established nothing.
I SAID "anti-gay marriage amendments," not FMA. You wrote above, "I would encourage states to preserve the institution of marriage as the traditional definition." I interpret this to include anti-gay marriage amendments. And, I think it's YOU who exhibit lunacy if you think the gay marriage ban would be the end of the anti-gay campaign of the religious right. With a conservative christian majority in place on the Supreme Court, re-enactment of anti-sodomy laws across the bible belt could, indeed, take place (along with anti-abortion laws). The ultimate goal of religionists and conservatives is to force us back in the closet.
The point of the letter wasn't that a private ceremony would be enough, but that MARRIAGE, recognized by society, is needed. The level of commitment in marriage ranks high above anything else, as you so eloquently established, and its benefits are manifold. However, you straights just will not relenquish your privilege and prerogatives, and insist on seeing gays as second-class citizens.
Your argument about "sin" is absurd: all may be sinners, but that doesn't keep you from marrying. You don't say that heterosexuality or its expression is sinful, only homosexuality. Besides, the concept of "sin" is irrelevant: secularists like me do not recognize it and shouldn't be chained by its assumptions. It is an insult and I see it as such.
For so long, gays were condemned because we were, supposedly, promiscuous and irresponsible, but now that we WANT commitment and responsibility, we are being denied it. Unbelievable.
What's the use? Religionists will NEVER change.
With a conservative christian majority in place on the Supreme Court, re-enactment of anti-sodomy laws across the bible belt could, indeed, take place (along with anti-abortion laws).
This is a scare tactic. I know of no mainstream Christian groups advocating sodomy laws. The government should be neutral, but since gays and activist courts are busy contoverting the will of the people, we'll have to put the stake in the ground to limit marriage to one man and one woman, as nature and natural morality intends for mankind.
The pro-life movement, however, does have mainstream xian support.
However, you straights just will not relenquish your privilege and prerogatives, and insist on seeing gays as second-class citizens.
I am assuming you mean conservative Christians and bigots when you say "you straights." If you are qualifying "you straights" as "all straights," your wrong.
The concept of "sin" is irrelevant: secularists like me do not recognize it and shouldn't be chained by its assumptions.
Absolutely.
sin1 Audio pronunciation of "sin" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn)
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
While not directly advocating sodomy laws, Focus on the Family has stated a desire to overturn Lawrence in their fund-raising letters, which would allow states to enforce sodomy laws again.
Exactly.
btw: The "will of the people" is not absolute. What seeker calls "activist courts" are in place, in part, to protect minorities from the "will of the people." It is absurd to attack and vilify the court system as "activist" because they come to conclusions with which you don't agree. What if the "will of the people" suddenly shifted to outlaw christianity and the activist courts ruled to protect your freedom of religion? This is no argument at all, merely sophistry.
And what do you mean by "nature and natural morality" "intending" something for mankind? How do you think you can get away with personifying "nature and natural morality" anyway? How can something so abstract and abstruse "intend" anything? And where, exactly, is this "nature and natural morality" anyway? Can I look it up on the internet, or, perhaps, go to some natural monument and find it written in granite?
What you really mean is God – and, in particular, the xian God. Which, of course, cannot be proven, and is a mere assertion. And, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, that which is asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.
Overing turning Lawerence is not equal to supporting anti-sodomy laws. Just as supporting a state amendment is not equal to supporting a federal amendment – another example of both sides trying to demagogue the other.
I disagree with Lawerence on the basis of state's rights, not because I want to have laws against "sodomy."
As your continued quotation of Hitchens and evidence of God – Do you have evidence or proof that there is no God? As much as I may not be able to prove that God exists, you cannot prove that God does not exists. So despite your efforts we are still at square one for both sides.
You can say you should not be "chained" by the concept of sin and that is fine. I never said you had to be. You merely accused me of denying your humanity because of the doctrine of sin and I pointed out how that was wrong within Christian theology.
As I said repeatedly, not once have I appealled to the Bible or Christian morality to make my case. When you bring up an issue dealing with my faith, I clarify your mischaracterization and then you use that to claim I am seeking to force my values on you. You intentionally force me in a lose-lose situation, by wrongly interpreting my faith, then attacking me for using my faith in this debate.
My goal as a Christian and as a conservative is not to see anybody "forced back in the closet." I have no problem with gays being open about who they are. I have no problem working with or helping or being friends with an openly gay person. You can continue to follow Sullivan's stereotypes and mischaracterize everything I say to fit in with his preconceived ideas or you can actually dialogue without the name-calling and hate-mongering.
Can anyone point to someone advocating sodomy laws? Besides Fred Phelps and the loons, is there anyone among evil right wing politicians or hate-filled religious right leaders who have said they want sodomy laws back? I don't know of any, yet you continue to use this nonexistent threat as a bludgeon against those that disagree with you.
The only thing you are right about is that I would love to see unborn babies protected in this nation, but understanding that it is a controversial issue I would allow (as the founders intended) for this, gay marriage, etc. to stay within the states.
1. Overturning Lawrence would open the door for reinstituting anti-sodomy laws. Do you really think the states of the bible belt would refrain?
2. I think anti-gay amendments in the states are just as atrocious as the FMA. In my mind, there's no difference, despite the "states' rights" argument. Besides, you DO support the FMA under certain circumstances.
I think the FMA is especially atrocious because its second sentence could be used to ban civil unions, partnerships, and contracts throughout the country, expecially with conservative xians in control of the Supreme Court. Anyone who supports it is revealed as anti-gay.
3. You demand I produce evidence that there is no God. How do I prove a negative? YOU are the one who asserts the existence of a God; it is up to YOU to prove your assertion, not me. I'm agnostic on the subject. If evidence could be produced, I'd gladly believe.
4. As to your comment on sin: you don't answer my point that you reserve the epithet "sin" for homosexuality and not heterosexuality. Thus, you exempt yourself while accusing me. And xians have always used "sin" to oppress and persecute gays. ALWAYS.
5. Despite your protestations, I still think it's your Christian belief that lies at the base of your objection to gay equality. How else? Oh, I suppose it's just a coincidence that you're a conservative xian and against gay equality, and that conservative xianity objects to gay equality.
6. Marriage is not the same as civil union or contractual obligations, as you yourself pointed out. I see no evidence that gay marriage has anything to do with the "decline" of marriage among straights. In fact, all I see is scapegoating going on for the failure of straights to measure up to their commitments. I can't understand why you wouldn't support gay marriage as a method to strengthen marriage in particular and society in general. As you point out, marriage stabilized individuals and provides numerous benefits to society. But, of course, religion is not based on either fact or reason, and I shouldn't expect religionists to respect either.
Overturning Lawrence would open the door for reinstituting anti-sodomy laws. Do you really think the states of the bible belt would refrain?
Without a doubt. As I have said, there is little or no support for anti-sodomy laws within evangelicalism anywhere in the U.S., or in any other major movement. I'm sure some fringe groups may want it, but they don't have popular support.
If evidence could be produced, I'd gladly believe.
Outside of the testimony of the creation and the scriptures, and maybe through answered prayer, there is nothing. So I guess you'll have to remain agnostic.
you reserve the epithet "sin" for homosexuality and not heterosexuality. Thus, you exempt yourself while accusing me.
Heterosexuality is not pathologic. However, there are types of heterosexual activity that most certainly are called sin, like promiscuity or adultery. The moniker sin is not used selectively for gays, it is used for all sexual sins, hetero or homo. It's just that homosexuality in ALL of it's forms is considered sin, while heteroxesuality is healthy and natural.
Despite your protestations, I still think it's your Christian belief that lies at the base of your objection to gay equality.
Seeing as the arguments from nature, sociology, and epidemiology are not overwhelming, and certainly not convincing to you, I understand why you would view our convictions this way. In fact, it is definitely true in part.
Marriage is not the same as civil union or contractual obligations, as you yourself pointed out. I see no evidence that gay marriage has anything to do with the "decline" of marriage among straights.
No, but going forward, if we advocate gay marriage, we most certainly are affecting the "institution of marriage." The extent and ethical value of those affects is what we argue about.
can't understand why you wouldn't support gay marriage as a method to strengthen marriage in particular and society in general.
Because marriage is not just about a union between two people with an emtional bond. It is about nature's design for healthy children, a stable society, and promoting personal health. By condoning gay marriage, we would be promoting mental illness as normative, helping to create homes where children have sub-optimal conditions for emotional development, and weakening the structure of society by diluting true marriages, which under healthy conditions, produce children and keep people from being promiscous.
Gay marriage might help gays practice fidelity, which WOULD be a good thing.
> I never said that gay marriage was the cause of all
> the negative things happening to marriage
Right. Would you place the other "causes" under the same scrutiny, and try to amend the Constitution to "fix" those "problems" too?
> you cannot say it played no role in the continuing
> decline. It appears to be another factor in a long
> line of factors as to why marriage declines in a
> society.
It "appears" to be, but no one can say *definitively* one way or the other. And then there's the question of which of the multiple factors plays the biggest role–shouldn't *that* factor be the one we start with? And unless and until we can determine which factor is *primarily* responsible for the decline of marriage, shouldn't we withold judgment on the other factors?
> We can also know that all of the family/child
> statistics are limited to male/female households
> because the surveys indicate it.
Oh, OK. You didn't state as much originally, so I didn't know this. I still want to question the results/statistics, however. As we all know, statistics can be used to support absolutely any position you want them to support, so the statistics alone prove absolutely nothing. In fact, very often statistics that are published say much more about the person/people who compiled them and use them to defend a position than they say about the actual facts they purport to represent …
> Also, we don't have gay marriage or gay adoption on
> any type of statistical scale now, so it wouldn't play
> into this study.
And this is also a reason why we should reserve judgment on these issues: we haven't studied them, and so we can't know what we're talking about here. Simple as that. This seems to indicate that the statistics you cited are, as far as we can tell at this point, irrelevant to the current debate (or perhaps "irrelevant" is too strong, and we should rather say that these statistics don't clearly bear on the issues being discussed, and so for the sake of intellectually honest, they should not be included on either side of the debate).
> it is a given that children fare better when they have
> both a mother and a father because of the different
> type of relationship they have with each one. This
> dynamic would not be present in same-sex households.
Again, I think you're overstating things a bit. How is this "a given?" Just because, in your mind, it's obvious, why should the rest of us accept that? For the record, it's not at all obvious in my mind that this the case, and for me to accept this as a valid reason for a position, I would need to be convinced. Where's your evidence for this being "a given?"
> I did not say that marriage was only a
> "Judeo-Christian phenomenon." I said that according to
> that belief system marriage has been around since the
> beginning.
OK, fair enough. How does that apply to non-Christians? Why should any non-Christian care about this one way or the other? Do non-Christian's feelings on this issue matter at all to you? Are they relevant, or do only Christian's beliefs matter here?
> Also, it is odd that you cite "Abraham and Isaac,
> David and Solomon" … since each one of them
> according to the Bible suffered because of their
> multiple marriages.
Where does it say that? I have a degree in Religion and have read the Bible many times, and do not recall this … can you point me to your citation for this? I'd really appreciate it!
> Because the Bible records activities does not mean the
> Bible endorses activities
This can cut both ways, can't it?
> according to [the Bible] one man/one woman marriage is
> foundational to human beings and is as old as we are.
Again, can you point me to your source for this? It doesn't sound right to me …
> It predates the concept of polygomy by hundreds, if
> not thousands, of years.
Is this another Bible concept, or a social anthropology concept?
Finally, I found this article to make an interesting point: http://www.slate.com/id/2440/
Thanks again!
One more quick comment: It is interesting that the US Constitution–a document designed to *protect individual liberties*–is (trying to be) used here to *deny* freedoms to a specific group of individuals. Does that seem right?
1. Yes, no one is going to pass those laws.
2. We disagree. I simply think that states should be allowed to determine their own morality without the federal government (Congress or judges) forcing it on them. I tend to favor some type of contracts that would give gay couples rights like visitation and inheritance.
3. My point remains the same. You assert there is no God, but have no evidence.
4. Actually I reserve the word "sin" to describe myself and any other human being. Specifically, I view all sex outside of man/woman marriage as sin. But, that doesn't equal all the pejoratives you assume from that.
5. Of course my Christian beliefs play a role in everything I do, but I specifically avoid arguing based on them when I am discussing things with someone who does not hold to the same belief system. It would be like me saying, "Well, you are only in favor of gay marriage because you are gay." Certainly, that plays a role in your thoughts on the issue, but you have reasons behind your beliefs – as do I.
6. You make a decent argument (before you fade iinto personal attacks). I do consider that and the possible benefits that marriage may bring to gay people. But looking at the statistics (facts) from the nations and states we cah evaluate, we see that gay marriage does not strengthen marriage.
I have repeatedly (in this very post) said that gay marriage is not the reason for the decline in marriage. We have done a horrible job in protecting it in the past. We talk a big game about marriage, but get divorced way, way too much. That is why you will never see me lay the blame of marriage failing at the feet of "gay activists."
But just as you say, you have to give me some evidence that gay marriage will both help marriage and gays. The statistics show that marriage continues to slide, if not faster, when gay marriage is introduced. The vast majority of gays do not get married and those that do divorce or seperate as often if not more often that straights.
seeker provides yet more evidence for the irrationality and bigotry of the anti-gay relitious forces.
Ward, I actually don't want to amend the Constitution. I would rather states deal with these issues. I would like to see states strengthen marriage through various means, maybe by making divorce harder, etc.
I agree that we should reserve judgement on this and study it more closely – this does not mean pass gay marriage today. We can evaluate the continued impact on other nations who have taken this step and see what the results are. Again, if it can be demonstrated that no harm comes to the instituion, children (from the lack of parents of both sexes) and society then I will be much closer to agreeing with you.
I value everyone's beliefs and am open to hearing them. As you can see, seeker and I are usually outnumbered in the comment section. The reason why my faith keeps coming up in this discussion is because others are bringing it up. I am not basing my arguments on Christianity.
As to the harm polygomy brought to Biblical characters:
Abraham – slept with his concubine Hagar and had Ishmael. This brough conflict between Hagar and Sarah (wife of Abraham) even though Sarah told him to do it. They were trying to fulfill God's promise in their own way. Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arab people, Isaac, the other son, is the ancestor of the Jewish people. Things have never been friendly in their rivalry.
Isaac – We both were mistaken on this one. Isaac was married to Rebekah and didn't have any other wives. It is actually his son, Jacob, that married Leah and Rachel and had difficulties and jealousy between them and likewise between their children – resulting in Joseph being sold into slavery.
David – After committing adultery with Bathseeba, David married her. Because of his initial sin, his son died. There was also constant conflict between the children of one wife and the children of another. It got so bad that one of his sons tried to take over the throne from him. Then he had sons fighting over the throne once he was gone.
Solomon – Solomon talks about the vanity of his many wives in Ecclesiates. They and their children caused so many conflicts that the entire nation became divided. One son ruled Judah. One son ruled Israel. Because of his polygomy, he left the nation of Israel divided after his death.
As to marriage being at the foundation of man according to the Bible – God created Adam and Eve and joined them together.
You wouldn't oppose the marriages of gays if you weren't a Christian Aaron. Your religion is absolutely linked to this, because your religion hates gays (regardless if you don't). Religious authorities blame gays for every societal ill. This, unfortunately, is a debate about religion.
Of course, there are other passages supporting monogamy in the scriptures, but Adam and Eve as the first archetype is an important one. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp
seeker provides yet more evidence for the irrationality and bigotry of the anti-gay relitious forces.
Could you be more specific? Is it because I label homosexuality as a pathology? I make no apologies for such a claim, and believe it as much as I believe all sins and maladaptive self-concepts and coping mechanisms are pathologic.
Homosexuality should be viewed as an emotional and perhaps physical pathology, and should be targeted for treatment like other pathologies.
In fact, if a "gay gene" is ever found, it will only be a matter of time before people start suggesting treatments to correct the mutation.
You just answered yourself, bigot-boy.
Really Louis, "bigot-boy" that is the best you can do. Again, I understand this is a deeply personal issue to you. My faith is a deeply personal issue to me as well, but we have to resist the urge to lash out with such silly personal attacks.
You may disagree with everything seeker and I say, but you do not have to respond the way you do. You continue to talk about Christians not accepting you as a human, yet you respond to us as if we are non-humans – lashing out at us in very personal attacks. It is disappointing that you can not respond any better.
I think it is an important point, also, that if a gay gene is ever found, that someone will suggest and perhaps even come up with ways to
– identify and abort gay fetuses
– use gene or drug therapy to change the phenotype of the person to hetero
Yes, seeker, if a gay gene is identified, xianity will make abortion a sacrament.
As to Aaron's nonsensical comment, seeker doesn't deserve a better reply. He is a bigot and a hate-monger. Period. And this is not name-calling, but a simple statement of fact. Responding to the likes of him is a total waste of time.
This amendment was killed. What are some of the nonsense "reasons" it was brought up in the first place?
Marriage Protection From What? Arguments for supporting failed amendment banning gay unions just don't hold up to scrutiny
Louis, I have repeatedly said this to you, but you ignore this statement to fit with your Andrew Sullivan characature of evangelicals.
Pro-life Christians will never advocate abortion. We will not change in order to abort "gay babies."
Freaks like Fred Phelps may, but not serious pro-life leader would ever change positions in order to allow the elimination of unborn babies because of their suspected sexuality.
It is at the best speculation and at worst character attacks to state something like that. I am personally offended by that.
Continue your namecalling and hate-filled responses, but do not expect any one to be won over to your side of this issue with the way you react.
You have demonstrated in other discussions that you are capable of responding civily even when the issue is very personal to you, but apparently you have chosen to ignore civility for rage-induced rhetoric.