Arnold cited “respect for the will of the people,” as expressed in the March 2000 ballot measure known as Proposition 22 (”only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”), as the reason for his planned veto. I was a USC freshman in March 2000, and of course, I strongly opposed Prop. 22 (a.k.a. the “Knight Initiative”). In fact, I switched my voter registration from Connecticut to California in large part because I wanted the chance to vote against it! I even attended an anti-Prop. 22 rally. But alas, the initiative passed by a 2-to-1 margin, and now, more than five years later, that fact is coming back to bite us in the ass.
I feel like I should get a bumper sticker that says, “Don’t blame me, I voted No on Knight!” or something.
How did we get from the land of the free, and respecting others choices to passing laws to make others live according to our views weather right or not?
The separation of church and state opened the door to question and contest all cristian beliefs implicitly included in the righting of many law.
But anyway if we take out the cristian belief of mariage it becomes nothing other than a legal union. If we don’t discriminate based on sex, then the legal union of to gay persons should be legal. Morality is not a issue when the religous weight is taken out of the equation of law.
Marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history, even those that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality.
It is obvious to all that sex is about reproduction. ThatÃÂs what itÃÂs for in animals, and thatÃÂs what itÃÂs for in us. We may find it enjoyable, but from a biological perspective, that is motivation to get us to engage in it and thus reproduce our species.
Sex is about babies, and there is an important fact about babies: They are helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention. ItÃÂs a full-time job more than one person can handle. Even when they grow out of the infant stage, children still need two parents to take care of them and provide for the family.
The most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as “marriages,” to refer to people in such unions as “spouses,” to alter forms so that people in such unions can present themselves as such, and to give them the status of married people regarding adoption, housing, taxes, insurance, divorce, and inheritance.
But while the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is. All society would be doing is playing a word game, stretching the term marriage so that it no longer picks out a particular human reality that has existed and will continue to existóunalteredóno matter what word games are played around it.
Democracy, I do not agree with your definitions of marriage and it’s purpose. I do not believe those are universal truths as you depict them. This issue needs to be debated on its merits, not the foolish consistencies of our religious forefathers.
If homosexuals want to get married, why not? Give their marriages equal standing under the law (which is all the government can choose to do or not to do). If God objects, let him deal with it. The religious right generally believes they are doomed to eternal hellfire anyway, so how much worse can he make the punishment for being married. Whether or not they marry does not change my marriage, it’s status, it’s importance, or my child. Let’s treat all of our fellow man with kindness and respect, and let God seperate the sinners and saints.
The reason that societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently from other unions is that doing so is to their benefit. Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.
It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of themóthe latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capableóbut why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround? The union of marriage does both by nature. ItÃÂs the way humans and human societies are designed to work.
Because marriage uniquely benefits societies and enables them to continue, societies extend to marriage special recognition and benefits in order to encourage it. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger it is and the better it can survive.
What would be the effects of creating a legal fiction that forces society to extend the same recognition and benefits to other unionsóone that, like homosexual marriage, do not contribute to society in the way marriage does?
For a start, extending recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would encourage them, just as they do marriage. This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.
The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS). This lifestyle results in more diseases, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality has not changed this; it is intrinsic to the behavior. Further, since homosexual unions are notoriously unstable, the cost that society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.
The problems of homosexuals donÃÂt just affect themselves. They affect others, including adopted children of homosexuals and members of the community at large. Homosexuality is a net cost to society. Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.
Another result of forcing society to treat homosexual unions as marriages would be the devaluation of actual marriage. The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many. Devaluing marriage further by detaching the term from the reality of marriage and applying it to non-productive homosexual unions would only further these trends.
There are thus ample reasons for society not to force people to treat homosexual unions as marriage.
For a society to be successful and function smoothly, its social policy needs to be in line with reality, and treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal.
I was sorry to read that you switched your voter registration from Connecticut to California “in large part” to attempt to defeat Prop. 22.
I had a large amount of respect for you and your blogging up until now. What you did strikes me not as just the opposite of civic responsibility, but a mark against your integrity.
Is everything you write that is not taken from another website similarly affected?
The gay marriage movement overreached. Period. They could have had the legal equivalent of marriage in almost every state in the union (and probably still can), but “Civil Unions” wouldn’t cut it - they wanted the title, too.
All they had to do was look at the damn polls and they’d have seen that “Civil Unions” would pass, while legally identical “Marriages” were doomed. Blaming the victim? Sometimes it’s the victim’s fault.
I can only assume that they’d rather have something to complain about (”Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”) than these rights.
I don’t care what title gets applied. I can see that some people would not want to apply the historically defined term “Marriage”, but I support the legal rights and responsibilities that go with marriage being applicable to homosexual couples, title be damned, and would have voted against prop 22. Yet I would have known it was a losing cause as I did so, just as the gay marriage proponents did. Or maybe they didn’t, and were suffering some kind of mass delusion.
And Democracy in Action, I know several homosexual couples who are rearing children, so if that’s what it’s all about, I’ll look for your support in the future.
Jonathan, what are you talking about? A college student is allowed to register in either his home state (permanent address) or the state where he goes to college, provided that he still spends substantial time at home (summers etc.). So I could validly register in either state. Who are you, then, to lecture me about my motives for choosing one valid legal option over another valid legal option? How does it suggest a lack of “integrity” that I decided to be a California voter, which I had every right to do, rather than a Connecticut voter, which I had every right to do?
This is an old argument on this site, Democracy, and don’t really feel like getting into all of the technical problems with what you’ve written here, so I’ll just deal with the logical issues. Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous. By that definition, post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies or ooferectomies, men who’ve had their testicles removed due to cancer, and a number of others would all be unable to engage in real marriage, and theirs would be a legal fiction–clearly, they’re not going to produce children either. Extending your logic to its absurd limits, it would also call for the immediate dissolution of any childless marriage upon one member of the couple reaching irreversible infertility, which I imagine would greatly increase the stress of the biological clock. And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender: what planet are you on? You honestly think that there are a significant number of people out there who are thinking “You know, I’m gay, and I’d love to act like a homosexual, but I’m not going to because if I do I can’t get married”? Please.
Homosexuals are still free to marry members of the opposite sex, are they not?
In any case, Ahnold is right to let this issue go to the voters in a ballot measure (my preference), or to the judges (not my preference), rather than appease an overzealous lefty legislature. If Ahnold didn’t veto this bill, he would instantly alienate the majority of Republicans and conservatives who still support him, which would kill any remaining chance he still has to get his initiatives passed this November. Frankly, getting back control of the state and getting back on sane fiscal ground is much more important than granting gay marriage rights to homosexuals against the will of the people, especially when California already allows civil unions with virtually all the same rights as marriage.
“I know several homosexual couples who are rearing children, so if that’s what it’s all about, I’ll look for your support in the future.” man/man and women/women are naturally have childred - do you have proof of that?
“Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous” That’s not what it says, it says “he most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married”
“By that definition, post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies or ooferectomies, men who’ve had their testicles removed due to cancer, and a number of others would all be unable to engage in real marriage, and theirs would be a legal fiction–clearly, they’re not going to produce children either. Extending your logic to its absurd limits, it would also call for the immediate dissolution of any childless marriage upon one member of the couple reaching irreversible infertility, which I imagine would greatly increase the stress of the biological clock”
Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.
“And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender” Again, not what it says. More gays would marry, thus more cost to society.
Democracy in Action - how is there a higher cost to society from gays marrying than from gays remaining single?
I would expect that the social cost of a lot of alienated single gays is MUCH higher than the of an equivalent number of gays in long-term stable relationships.
“”Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous” That’s not what it says, it says “he most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married”
“
Doesn’t it, though? The quotation that lead to that is: “Marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history, even those that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality” Look at that first sentence–marriage is all about procreation under this definition, and your business about being able to adopt and provide both a mother and a father is irrelevant, as there’s nothing here about rearing children, merely producing them. Thus, those who are unable to procreate can’t be married in the real sense, but only in terms of a legal fiction. Ergo, the 60-year-olds who find true love at last can’t be really married, as they won’t be procreating.
“‘And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender’ Again, not what it says. More gays would marry, thus more cost to society.”
Try again, Democracy. The exact words used were: “This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.” Your attempt to back up that it’s a dangerous and destructive lifestyle was with lower life expectencies, higher probability of disease, depression, etc–all of which strike those outside of long-term relationships to a much higher extent than they do those in long-term relationships. Therefore, the lifestyle you find dangerous is based upon orientation and high number of partners, *not* marriage. To expect someone reading your comment to think that the lifestyle to which you were objecting was one of legal marriage instead is unreasonable–and if it’s what you really meant, then you’re doing a bait-and-switch by using misleading statistics. Or, well, sort of almost using them, as you provide no actual numbers nor citations.
Oh, and incidentally, one of the other lines that I just can’t let go anymore: “Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.”. That must be quite a shock to those aware of the number of children born out of wedlock, or to the socially productive bastards who are, and always have been, members of society. Clearly, unions such as “dating couple” are capable of producing children as well, even if they aren’t legally recognized as unions.
There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn’t citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children
Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles. See the boy scouts.
“I would expect that the social cost of a lot of alienated single gays is MUCH higher than the of an equivalent number of gays in long-term stable relationship” The assumption that they will stay in long-term relationship is probaby wrong. Divorces already cost this country - we should be trying to reduce it, not extend it.
Gay people could indeed marry people of the opposite sex, Andrew. But that’s a sophomoric point beneath you. Under anti-micegenation laws, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex but same ancestral profile as themselves, so what right were those whites who wanted to marry blacks and vice-versa being denied that others had? Without a ramp alternative to the steps in front of the public library, everyone still has the exact same right to go to the library, so what right that others have are people in a wheelchair being denied? (not that I think being gay is in any way equivalent to being paraplegic, but it’s a fair rhetorical point) The mere fact that everyone has the exact same rights on paper doesn’t mean that such laws or practices can’t be inherently discriminatory, or that the de facto rights are the same for all.
Well, we can always go the French route, and have the legal ‘marriage’ be the Civil one at the Mairie, and then, optionally, one can have a religious ceremony and celebration to satisfy those needs, if any …
And that may well be the result of the so-called-christian extreme hostility to Civil Unions … and it would not be an unreasonable result …
The Legislatures could simply say - “OK - no-one gets a State marriage license any more - and stright of gay can have a civil union license - oh, and, by the way, places of religion, yer on yer own !”
The old theological saw of “Marriage exists only for the production of children” supposedly went away when women stopped being mere chattels …
You have stopped being mere chattels, haven’t you, Becky and Bea and Antonia and Brenda ?
(ducking and covering sensitive areas, grinning (a little nervously))
I am not averse to Alasdair’s solution of the state getting out of the marriage licensing business entirely.
Mike, while my point may have been sophomoric and not entirely serious, allow me to respond to some of your points. Race is an inalterable part of one’s genetics; what sex one prefers to copulate with isn’t necessarily. From a legal standpoint, the Constitution/SCOTUS utilizes strict scrutiny for race-based discrimination, but not gender-based discrimination. If gender doesn’t merit strict scrutiny, I don’t necessarily think it is automatic that sexual preference/orientation would merit strict scrutiny.
As for the handicap/library argument, I believe the Supreme Court struck down much of the Americans With Disabilities Act (someone with a better recollection than myself please correct me here). While the legislature/states may have power to force government buildings and/or private buildings to accommodate the disabled, I don’t believe SCOTUS has yet ruled that not making accessibility to the disabled easier is unconstitutional.
In sum, gay marriage may be a good idea for states to allow, but by no means is it a constitutional, civil right.
The government should definitely get out of the marriage business.
The solution would be fairly easy. Set up a new level of corporations which would exist on a personal level, which would allow partnerships to be formed between any number of consenting adults.
For fans of traditional marriage, they could limit their partnerships to one man and one woman. However partnerships could also be formed between two men, two women, or even contain more people, which would make the 1-5% of the population, who want polygamous or polygynous (sp?) relationships, quite happy. Non-sexual partnerships could even be formed between people who wish the benefits of marriage without the name or the social expectations.
Churches could continue to limit marriages to the approved levels of coupling, but people in secular society can have the freedom to link as desired.
Its such a good solution, it will probably never be attempted.
As far as religious authority goes, the ones that count are mostly in favor or don’t care.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very much in favor of it, as gay couples will increase the number of fantastic pasta dishes.
Cthulhu doesn’t care if his future meals are married or not.
JR “Bob” Dobbs could care less about states of marriage so long as the checks keep coming in.
And Eris is definitely against gay marriage, as she would hate anything which would add to the stability of society. However, she does enjoy the debates and arguments and anger generated on all sides, so she would support the contentious aspect of the issue.
So one in favor, one against (kinda), and two abstentions. Its a wash. So get married, no matter who you are. The gods don’t mind.
The Gov wants it the way the voters said they wanted it.
If the voters later decide they want it some other way, then the Gov should once again support the voters.
The legislators, who are supposed to represent the voters, are representing themselves instead. The Gov is keeping trust with the voters and not letting an end run happen.
Andrew - the supreme court struck down that portion of the ADA which applied to state governments. Eg, it ruled that while Congress has the power to force businesses engaged in interstate commerce to comply with the provisions of the ADA, it doesn’t have the power to force state governments to do so.
Democracy in Action - do you have any statistical evidence to support your implication that gay couples are more likely to seperate than straight couples?
Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ’sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8
The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.
Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences ó indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”15
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.
Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18
More Partners = Higher chance of seperation. Not that they male/female is doing that great.
I have neither the time nor the energy to refute each ridiculous point, but suffece to say: I recognize most of what’s been posted as occasionally the results of fatally flawed studies and mostly twisting of factual claims to try to support the fact that you think people shouldn’t like homosexuals!
Just say it! “I, ____, aka Democracy in Action, find homosexuals to be disgusting and I wish there ws some way to make everyone straight. In the meantime, I’d like to make known that what I believe about gays from my religious background can be completely supported by ’scientific evidence.’ And I take solace in the fact that I won’t have to deal with these people in heaven, ’cause ain’t no way God will let them in.”
My previous post was more hyperbole than I think I’ve ever posted here on Bloy.com.
I do actually feel kinda bad–I shouldn’t assume that DiA is a bigot or even that he or she is religious.
I apologize that I may have gone overboard, but I do get very frustrated when people try to use my field–hard science and the closely related social sciences–to justify their preconceived notions on social issues…especially without citing souces.
DiA, sadly today & this weekend are not good, but I’d be more than willing to engage in an academic regarding some of your dubious conclusions & claims at some point in the future.
Of course this entry has a lot of comments. Gay marriage is one of the two political hot buttons of this age. It was the vote turner in the last presidential election.
My real reason for commenting is to ask how you are handling the extremely conservative mindset in your current state of residence? Isn’t IN funø
I live in Fort Wayne and it is turning my hair gray faster than my age would warrant.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:52:20 am
You mean the people’s voice is being respected? How novel.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:59:13 am
I vote that Brendan and Becky can’t get married. Sorry, guys. It’s the will of the people.
In other news, two wolves and a sheep are set to vote on dinner…
September 8th, 2005 at 8:06:34 am
How did we get from the land of the free, and respecting others choices to passing laws to make others live according to our views weather right or not?
The separation of church and state opened the door to question and contest all cristian beliefs implicitly included in the righting of many law.
But anyway if we take out the cristian belief of mariage it becomes nothing other than a legal union. If we don’t discriminate based on sex, then the legal union of to gay persons should be legal. Morality is not a issue when the religous weight is taken out of the equation of law.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:08:51 am
just in case you wonder.I am maried and have four great kids…
September 8th, 2005 at 8:21:55 am
Marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history, even those that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality.
It is obvious to all that sex is about reproduction. ThatÃÂs what itÃÂs for in animals, and thatÃÂs what itÃÂs for in us. We may find it enjoyable, but from a biological perspective, that is motivation to get us to engage in it and thus reproduce our species.
Sex is about babies, and there is an important fact about babies: They are helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention. ItÃÂs a full-time job more than one person can handle. Even when they grow out of the infant stage, children still need two parents to take care of them and provide for the family.
The most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as “marriages,” to refer to people in such unions as “spouses,” to alter forms so that people in such unions can present themselves as such, and to give them the status of married people regarding adoption, housing, taxes, insurance, divorce, and inheritance.
But while the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is. All society would be doing is playing a word game, stretching the term marriage so that it no longer picks out a particular human reality that has existed and will continue to existóunalteredóno matter what word games are played around it.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:42:56 am
Democracy, I do not agree with your definitions of marriage and it’s purpose. I do not believe those are universal truths as you depict them. This issue needs to be debated on its merits, not the foolish consistencies of our religious forefathers.
If homosexuals want to get married, why not? Give their marriages equal standing under the law (which is all the government can choose to do or not to do). If God objects, let him deal with it. The religious right generally believes they are doomed to eternal hellfire anyway, so how much worse can he make the punishment for being married. Whether or not they marry does not change my marriage, it’s status, it’s importance, or my child. Let’s treat all of our fellow man with kindness and respect, and let God seperate the sinners and saints.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:06:20 am
The reason that societies recognize the natural law institution of marriage and treat it differently from other unions is that doing so is to their benefit. Marriage alone, of all possible unions that people may form (partnerships, friendships, tribal alliances, etc.), gives to society the one thing it needs most to survive: new members. Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.
It is theoretically possible to sever the link between the generating of offspring and the raising of themóthe latter being something of which those in a homosexual union would be at least semi-capableóbut why should any society want to engage in such a dubious, cumbersome workaround? The union of marriage does both by nature. ItÃÂs the way humans and human societies are designed to work.
Because marriage uniquely benefits societies and enables them to continue, societies extend to marriage special recognition and benefits in order to encourage it. The more stable and successful marriages that exist in society, the stronger it is and the better it can survive.
What would be the effects of creating a legal fiction that forces society to extend the same recognition and benefits to other unionsóone that, like homosexual marriage, do not contribute to society in the way marriage does?
For a start, extending recognition and benefits to homosexual unions would encourage them, just as they do marriage. This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.
The lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals (and it was so even before the advent of AIDS). This lifestyle results in more diseases, more psychological problems, more suicides, and more general misery than in heterosexuals. Increasing social acceptance of homosexuality has not changed this; it is intrinsic to the behavior. Further, since homosexual unions are notoriously unstable, the cost that society already bears through divorce would increase as the courts are flooded with cases of homosexual divorce.
The problems of homosexuals donÃÂt just affect themselves. They affect others, including adopted children of homosexuals and members of the community at large. Homosexuality is a net cost to society. Like other self-destructive lifestyles, such as alcoholism or drug addition, homosexuality places a greater burden on the community, and it does so without returning tangible benefit to society in the form of new members.
Another result of forcing society to treat homosexual unions as marriages would be the devaluation of actual marriage. The institution of marriage has been devalued in our culture, creating a wave of single-parent families, unwed mothers, economic hardships, abortions, divorces, juvenile delinquency, and misery for many. Devaluing marriage further by detaching the term from the reality of marriage and applying it to non-productive homosexual unions would only further these trends.
There are thus ample reasons for society not to force people to treat homosexual unions as marriage.
For a society to be successful and function smoothly, its social policy needs to be in line with reality, and treating homosexual unions as something they are not will defeat that goal.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:14:37 am
Brendan:
I was sorry to read that you switched your voter registration from Connecticut to California “in large part” to attempt to defeat Prop. 22.
I had a large amount of respect for you and your blogging up until now. What you did strikes me not as just the opposite of civic responsibility, but a mark against your integrity.
Is everything you write that is not taken from another website similarly affected?
–Jonathan
September 8th, 2005 at 10:27:54 am
The gay marriage movement overreached. Period. They could have had the legal equivalent of marriage in almost every state in the union (and probably still can), but “Civil Unions” wouldn’t cut it - they wanted the title, too.
All they had to do was look at the damn polls and they’d have seen that “Civil Unions” would pass, while legally identical “Marriages” were doomed. Blaming the victim? Sometimes it’s the victim’s fault.
I can only assume that they’d rather have something to complain about (”Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”) than these rights.
I don’t care what title gets applied. I can see that some people would not want to apply the historically defined term “Marriage”, but I support the legal rights and responsibilities that go with marriage being applicable to homosexual couples, title be damned, and would have voted against prop 22. Yet I would have known it was a losing cause as I did so, just as the gay marriage proponents did. Or maybe they didn’t, and were suffering some kind of mass delusion.
And Democracy in Action, I know several homosexual couples who are rearing children, so if that’s what it’s all about, I’ll look for your support in the future.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:33:37 am
Jonathan, what are you talking about? A college student is allowed to register in either his home state (permanent address) or the state where he goes to college, provided that he still spends substantial time at home (summers etc.). So I could validly register in either state. Who are you, then, to lecture me about my motives for choosing one valid legal option over another valid legal option? How does it suggest a lack of “integrity” that I decided to be a California voter, which I had every right to do, rather than a Connecticut voter, which I had every right to do?
September 8th, 2005 at 10:36:39 am
Dear Democracy….next time at least have the decency to give citations to your statements rather than just plagiarizing them.
September 8th, 2005 at 1:19:43 pm
This is an old argument on this site, Democracy, and don’t really feel like getting into all of the technical problems with what you’ve written here, so I’ll just deal with the logical issues. Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous. By that definition, post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies or ooferectomies, men who’ve had their testicles removed due to cancer, and a number of others would all be unable to engage in real marriage, and theirs would be a legal fiction–clearly, they’re not going to produce children either. Extending your logic to its absurd limits, it would also call for the immediate dissolution of any childless marriage upon one member of the couple reaching irreversible infertility, which I imagine would greatly increase the stress of the biological clock. And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender: what planet are you on? You honestly think that there are a significant number of people out there who are thinking “You know, I’m gay, and I’d love to act like a homosexual, but I’m not going to because if I do I can’t get married”? Please.
September 8th, 2005 at 1:40:47 pm
Take that ‘Religious Opression in Action’ Ha!
September 8th, 2005 at 2:14:23 pm
Homosexuals are still free to marry members of the opposite sex, are they not?
In any case, Ahnold is right to let this issue go to the voters in a ballot measure (my preference), or to the judges (not my preference), rather than appease an overzealous lefty legislature. If Ahnold didn’t veto this bill, he would instantly alienate the majority of Republicans and conservatives who still support him, which would kill any remaining chance he still has to get his initiatives passed this November. Frankly, getting back control of the state and getting back on sane fiscal ground is much more important than granting gay marriage rights to homosexuals against the will of the people, especially when California already allows civil unions with virtually all the same rights as marriage.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:25:24 pm
“I know several homosexual couples who are rearing children, so if that’s what it’s all about, I’ll look for your support in the future.” man/man and women/women are naturally have childred - do you have proof of that?
“Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous” That’s not what it says, it says “he most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married”
“By that definition, post menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies or ooferectomies, men who’ve had their testicles removed due to cancer, and a number of others would all be unable to engage in real marriage, and theirs would be a legal fiction–clearly, they’re not going to produce children either. Extending your logic to its absurd limits, it would also call for the immediate dissolution of any childless marriage upon one member of the couple reaching irreversible infertility, which I imagine would greatly increase the stress of the biological clock”
Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.
“And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender” Again, not what it says. More gays would marry, thus more cost to society.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:34:57 pm
Democracy in Action - how is there a higher cost to society from gays marrying than from gays remaining single?
I would expect that the social cost of a lot of alienated single gays is MUCH higher than the of an equivalent number of gays in long-term stable relationships.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:55:59 pm
“”Unfortunately, your stipulation that marriage is a legal fiction if it’s between a couple who can’t produce children is inherently ludicrous” That’s not what it says, it says “he most society could do is institute homosexual marriage as a legal fiction. That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married”
“
Doesn’t it, though? The quotation that lead to that is: “Marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation. This is the reality of what marriage is and what it has been understood to be in all human societies in history, even those that have been otherwise tolerant of homosexuality” Look at that first sentence–marriage is all about procreation under this definition, and your business about being able to adopt and provide both a mother and a father is irrelevant, as there’s nothing here about rearing children, merely producing them. Thus, those who are unable to procreate can’t be married in the real sense, but only in terms of a legal fiction. Ergo, the 60-year-olds who find true love at last can’t be really married, as they won’t be procreating.
“‘And as for thinking that more people would have gay sex if they were allowed to marry someone of their own gender’ Again, not what it says. More gays would marry, thus more cost to society.”
Try again, Democracy. The exact words used were: “This would result in more people engaging in a dangerous and destructive lifestyle that is a net cost to society.” Your attempt to back up that it’s a dangerous and destructive lifestyle was with lower life expectencies, higher probability of disease, depression, etc–all of which strike those outside of long-term relationships to a much higher extent than they do those in long-term relationships. Therefore, the lifestyle you find dangerous is based upon orientation and high number of partners, *not* marriage. To expect someone reading your comment to think that the lifestyle to which you were objecting was one of legal marriage instead is unreasonable–and if it’s what you really meant, then you’re doing a bait-and-switch by using misleading statistics. Or, well, sort of almost using them, as you provide no actual numbers nor citations.
Oh, and incidentally, one of the other lines that I just can’t let go anymore: “Marriage alone is capable of generating and bringing to maturity productive new members for a society and thus enabling it to continue. No other union does this.”. That must be quite a shock to those aware of the number of children born out of wedlock, or to the socially productive bastards who are, and always have been, members of society. Clearly, unions such as “dating couple” are capable of producing children as well, even if they aren’t legally recognized as unions.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:02:26 pm
Here’s a few examples:
There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn’t citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children
Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles. See the boy scouts.
“I would expect that the social cost of a lot of alienated single gays is MUCH higher than the of an equivalent number of gays in long-term stable relationship” The assumption that they will stay in long-term relationship is probaby wrong. Divorces already cost this country - we should be trying to reduce it, not extend it.
September 8th, 2005 at 3:34:54 pm
Gay people could indeed marry people of the opposite sex, Andrew. But that’s a sophomoric point beneath you. Under anti-micegenation laws, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex but same ancestral profile as themselves, so what right were those whites who wanted to marry blacks and vice-versa being denied that others had? Without a ramp alternative to the steps in front of the public library, everyone still has the exact same right to go to the library, so what right that others have are people in a wheelchair being denied? (not that I think being gay is in any way equivalent to being paraplegic, but it’s a fair rhetorical point) The mere fact that everyone has the exact same rights on paper doesn’t mean that such laws or practices can’t be inherently discriminatory, or that the de facto rights are the same for all.
September 8th, 2005 at 4:18:49 pm
Well, we can always go the French route, and have the legal ‘marriage’ be the Civil one at the Mairie, and then, optionally, one can have a religious ceremony and celebration to satisfy those needs, if any …
And that may well be the result of the so-called-christian extreme hostility to Civil Unions … and it would not be an unreasonable result …
The Legislatures could simply say - “OK - no-one gets a State marriage license any more - and stright of gay can have a civil union license - oh, and, by the way, places of religion, yer on yer own !”
The old theological saw of “Marriage exists only for the production of children” supposedly went away when women stopped being mere chattels …
You have stopped being mere chattels, haven’t you, Becky and Bea and Antonia and Brenda ?
(ducking and covering sensitive areas, grinning (a little nervously))
September 8th, 2005 at 4:47:32 pm
I am not averse to Alasdair’s solution of the state getting out of the marriage licensing business entirely.
Mike, while my point may have been sophomoric and not entirely serious, allow me to respond to some of your points. Race is an inalterable part of one’s genetics; what sex one prefers to copulate with isn’t necessarily. From a legal standpoint, the Constitution/SCOTUS utilizes strict scrutiny for race-based discrimination, but not gender-based discrimination. If gender doesn’t merit strict scrutiny, I don’t necessarily think it is automatic that sexual preference/orientation would merit strict scrutiny.
As for the handicap/library argument, I believe the Supreme Court struck down much of the Americans With Disabilities Act (someone with a better recollection than myself please correct me here). While the legislature/states may have power to force government buildings and/or private buildings to accommodate the disabled, I don’t believe SCOTUS has yet ruled that not making accessibility to the disabled easier is unconstitutional.
In sum, gay marriage may be a good idea for states to allow, but by no means is it a constitutional, civil right.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:16:19 pm
Do we need a law for everything?
Tell me please!!!If a man wants to
marry a monkey do we need a law.If
so who will say no to the woman who
wants a 13year old lover.All men
are created equal that means every-
body.How do I know that because we
all make up mankind.So he did need to
say all woman because he was talking
about everyone.He did not need to
say all Children they knew what
he was talking about. He was looking out of the eyes of God and not
men.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:21:46 am
I want to marry Howard Hughes posthumously so I can inherit his estate.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:18:39 am
The government should definitely get out of the marriage business.
The solution would be fairly easy. Set up a new level of corporations which would exist on a personal level, which would allow partnerships to be formed between any number of consenting adults.
For fans of traditional marriage, they could limit their partnerships to one man and one woman. However partnerships could also be formed between two men, two women, or even contain more people, which would make the 1-5% of the population, who want polygamous or polygynous (sp?) relationships, quite happy. Non-sexual partnerships could even be formed between people who wish the benefits of marriage without the name or the social expectations.
Churches could continue to limit marriages to the approved levels of coupling, but people in secular society can have the freedom to link as desired.
Its such a good solution, it will probably never be attempted.
As far as religious authority goes, the ones that count are mostly in favor or don’t care.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very much in favor of it, as gay couples will increase the number of fantastic pasta dishes.
Cthulhu doesn’t care if his future meals are married or not.
JR “Bob” Dobbs could care less about states of marriage so long as the checks keep coming in.
And Eris is definitely against gay marriage, as she would hate anything which would add to the stability of society. However, she does enjoy the debates and arguments and anger generated on all sides, so she would support the contentious aspect of the issue.
So one in favor, one against (kinda), and two abstentions. Its a wash. So get married, no matter who you are. The gods don’t mind.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:47:22 pm
The Gov wants it the way the voters said they wanted it.
If the voters later decide they want it some other way, then the Gov should once again support the voters.
The legislators, who are supposed to represent the voters, are representing themselves instead. The Gov is keeping trust with the voters and not letting an end run happen.
So what is so hard to understand about all that?
September 9th, 2005 at 1:03:02 pm
Mike - can you define “”anti-micegenation, please ? Are you saying that there are statutes against rodents procreating ?
(grin)
September 9th, 2005 at 1:11:29 pm
Andrew - the supreme court struck down that portion of the ADA which applied to state governments. Eg, it ruled that while Congress has the power to force businesses engaged in interstate commerce to comply with the provisions of the ADA, it doesn’t have the power to force state governments to do so.
September 9th, 2005 at 1:12:24 pm
Democracy in Action - do you have any statistical evidence to support your implication that gay couples are more likely to seperate than straight couples?
September 9th, 2005 at 2:50:00 pm
A. Promiscuity
Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ’sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’”4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8
The data relating to gay promiscuity were obtained from self-identified gay men. Some advocates argue that the average would be lower if closeted homosexuals were included in the statistics.9 That is likely true, according to data obtained in a 2000 survey in Australia that tracked whether men who had sex with men were associated with the gay community. Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.10 This may imply that it is riskier to be “out” than “closeted.” Adopting a gay identity may create more pressure to be promiscuous and to be so with a cohort of other more promiscuous partners.
Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences ó indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic.11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays.12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13 As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.14 Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”15
A study done in Baltimore and reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.16 Promiscuity is the factor most responsible for the extreme rates of these and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases cited below, many of which result in a shortened life span for men who have sex with men.
Promiscuity among lesbians is less extreme, but it is still higher than among heterosexual women. Overall, women tend to have fewer sex partners than men. But there is a surprising finding about lesbian promiscuity in the literature. Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men.17 Other studies similarly show that 75-90 percent of women who have sex with women have also had sex with men.18
More Partners = Higher chance of seperation. Not that they male/female is doing that great.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:28:11 pm
The “facts” DiA presents are such crap!
I have neither the time nor the energy to refute each ridiculous point, but suffece to say: I recognize most of what’s been posted as occasionally the results of fatally flawed studies and mostly twisting of factual claims to try to support the fact that you think people shouldn’t like homosexuals!
Just say it! “I, ____, aka Democracy in Action, find homosexuals to be disgusting and I wish there ws some way to make everyone straight. In the meantime, I’d like to make known that what I believe about gays from my religious background can be completely supported by ’scientific evidence.’ And I take solace in the fact that I won’t have to deal with these people in heaven, ’cause ain’t no way God will let them in.”
There. Debate over. [Eye roll]
September 9th, 2005 at 3:35:42 pm
My previous post was more hyperbole than I think I’ve ever posted here on Bloy.com.
I do actually feel kinda bad–I shouldn’t assume that DiA is a bigot or even that he or she is religious.
I apologize that I may have gone overboard, but I do get very frustrated when people try to use my field–hard science and the closely related social sciences–to justify their preconceived notions on social issues…especially without citing souces.
DiA, sadly today & this weekend are not good, but I’d be more than willing to engage in an academic regarding some of your dubious conclusions & claims at some point in the future.
September 11th, 2005 at 4:16:49 pm
Of course this entry has a lot of comments. Gay marriage is one of the two political hot buttons of this age. It was the vote turner in the last presidential election.
My real reason for commenting is to ask how you are handling the extremely conservative mindset in your current state of residence? Isn’t IN funø
I live in Fort Wayne and it is turning my hair gray faster than my age would warrant.