Recapturing Marriage: How Blue State Conservatism Can Reinvigorate the Pro-family, Pro-marriage Agenda
by M. Dylan McClelland | View comments |
Print This Post
California conservatives should co-opt the recent Supreme Court decision, embrace the importance of marriage as a unifying and positive institution in America, and propose a strong pro-marriage, pro-family agenda.
The California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Marriage Cases, which concluded that the California Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriages, reverberated around the country. Across the nation liberals rejoiced as conservatives bemoaned the ruling. Its effects, however, hold far more promise for conservatives than their progressive counterparts.
Was the Court’s decision unwarranted judicial activism and social tinkering? Probably not. The California Constitution has always been construed as more protective than the US Constitution. While social engineering is better left to the Legislature and the People, the mostly Republican-appointed Court was not clearly outside the bounds of its jurisprudence. Indeed the Court’s recognition of the importance of marriage as an institution is a conservative refrain.
While Senator McCain and the GOP nationally are well served politically by assailing the decision, California conservatives would be wise to embrace the decision, and co-opt the issue for their own. The Supreme Court largely missed the importance of marriage as the most favorable forum for productive childrearing, lost as it was in the mysteries of love and procreation, neither of which are necessarily aided by the legal bond.
But California conservatives need not ignore the truly important functions served by marriage. Conservatives are faced with a choice: rally around a voter initiative to amend the Constitution and reverse the Court’s opinion, or embrace same-sex marriages and work for a pro-family agenda which recognizes the importance of all productive marriages.
There is relatively little evidence that same-sex marriages threaten traditional marriages. The Netherlands example, where post-legalization declines in traditional marriage followed legalization of same-sex unions, is just as likely caused by that nation’s and Europe’s generally libertine decay in a shared culture and pro-family mores. While the data is not yet clear on the effects of same-sex marriage, many other facts are clear. No-fault divorce, destructive and wrong-headed family and support laws, and the degradation of social mores valuing human life and strong families have all been far more pernicious to the family structure. It is here that blue state conservatives can make a difference.
While many gay rights’ advocates have conceded their interest lies not in securing marriage, but only in the recognition of the right to it, there is no reason to believe that those same-sex couples who do marry are any less interested in raising productive, contributing families. Same-sex married couples are no less interested in safe communities for their children, good schools, or economic security. In fact, given a stake in them, they have more reason to support those goals. Here, conservatives have their real chance at both blue state political success and strong pro-family policies.
California conservatives should co-opt the Court’s decision, embrace the importance of marriage as a unifying and positive institution in America, and propose a strong pro-marriage, pro-family agenda. A good start would be tax breaks for married couples, and reform of the divorce and child support laws to place value on marriage and the protection and support of productive child-rearing. Other goals abound to which same-sex couples ought to have no objection. For one: school choice. Are gay couples any more likely to want their children educated in a decaying and wholly ineffective public school monopoly? Two: increased parental rights including not only school choice, but parental notification laws. Is there some reason why a gay couple would find it acceptable to have their daughter subjected to a brutal and harmful procedure without their input or guidance? Three: safe communities and crime reduction. There is no reason why the gay community benefits from a rising tide of crime in California cities like Oakland, Sacramento, and Fresno. The desire to keep one’s family safe is universal.
Indeed, same-sex parents, confronted for the first time with the results of failed liberal policies on families and marriages, may find themselves at odds with long-time political associations. Most importantly, conservatives could drive the debate away from the divisive Balkanizing politics of the Left — which puts everyone in a box labeled by their race, gender, and orientation — to a more beneficial dynamic in which people embrace their interests and ignore the bloc voting which has for too long empowered the Left.
This strategy is concededly not yet a Bible-belt or Midwest tactic. However, in the future it may well be. Polls suggest majorities of young people ambivalent or supportive of same-sex marriage. Polling from the last several national elections also suggests waning support for abortion, and a higher percentage of young voters are pro-life than ever before. Advancing only an attack on the gay lifestyle which ignores the shared interests of many if not most same-sex couples in lower taxes, greater growth, safer communities, and strong families will spell defeat. For blue state conservatives, the goal should be to advance a pro-family agenda which includes same-sex marriages and focuses on strong pro-marriage policies.
mmcclel@winfirst.com
Read more articles by M. Dylan McClelland
“Same-sex married couples are no less interested in safe communities for their children, good schools, or economic security.”
To repeat myself from a previous post, this whole article is pure, unadulterated bean dip. What has the author been smoking?
James A. Clifton wrote once about the concept of noble savagery in his book, The Invented Indian. Indians, as the myth goes, were spiritual, egalitarian, innocent people living in perfect harmony with the earth. They welcomed the white man, taught him the secrets of the wilderness, and shared with him the wisdom of their social institutions. In turn white men tried to destroy them. Like all myths, this one leaves certain things out: in this case, high infant mortality, low life-expectancy, human sacrifice, cannibalism, infanticide, ritual torture, geronticide, slaughter of prisoners, slavery, and the like.
As I posted before, homosexuals have had 40 years since the Stonewall Riots to create whatever they wanted in the places they carved out for themselves, and have created places only for locating new sex partners, not places where long-lasting, stable relationships or safe neighborhoods could flourish.
Male homosexuals are highly promiscuous. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent [that’s not just one or two cases; that’s 43 percent!] of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sex partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sex partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sex partners. Lesbians are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women. If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? Needless to say, sexually-transmitted diseases and drug abuse are also disproportionately high among gays, as they are in promiscuous straights. Stable people at peace with themselves do not do these things.
If gross promiscuity and drug abuse are not indications of a disorder, I’d like to know what McClellan’s idea of it is.
In view of this evidence, it is clear that homosexuals do not even want to establish monogamous relationships. New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, a more conservative homosexual advocate of gay marriage, says that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity. In other words, they admit that “to declare themselves a couple” is not even their wish. He also argues that marriage civilizes men, but it’s the woman who civilizes the man. A man needs to be civilized, but that lesson is taught by women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves.
So where does McClellan get the idea that gays are interested in the same things straights are?
The best definition of the gay rights movement I’ve ever seen is, “self-deception as a group effort.” Not only are they deceiving themselves, but straights as well. Like the invented Indian, this is the noble homosexual who has also been invented to fool a gullible public. Why don’t we just listen to what they are saying, instead of conjuring up wishful thinking theories in our heads?
Comment by sedonaman | June 12, 2008
Sedonaman, must you regurgitate that crap everywhere? This was actually a good article, making a good point and seeing the positive views that are likely held by anyone interested in raising children. Try for a change to get beyond the immediate knee-jerk reaction that you seem hell-bent on putting forward in which you dismiss all same-sex couples on the basis of the behavior of SOME homosexuals.
Comment by AMAI | June 12, 2008
Mormons who practiced polygamy in the 1800's weren't fundamentally at odds with the prevailing culture vis-a-vis values and child rearing. Yet their practices were made illegal, and many of them fled the country. Why wouldn't a guy who's married to more than one woman want his wives and children to be safe, prosperous, and economically secure? What was the reasoning behind driving such people out of the country instead of brining them into the fold?
Self interest is a fundamental human instinct. Of course we would not expect homosexual couples to NOT display the same self interest that heterosexual couples do. Pedophiles, transsexuals, transvestites, zoophiles, masochists, and people of every possible sexual persuasion all display self interest. That doesn't legitimize their behavior, nor does it imply that they will embrace a particular political philosophy.
Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that all "married" homosexual couples have, or desire to have, children and embrace "family values" in the first place. It is fallacious to assume that all heterosexual married couples will do so. But because homosexual couples are naturally incapable of child production (I know that may come as a shock to some of the more politically correct readers), and because of the expense and difficulty of the adoption process (for anyone, and especially for homosexual couples), it is much more unlikely that they will have children and actualize their self interest for their "families". By design, there's just not likely to be many Ward and Jerry Cleaver's out there in the gay community. Trying to use "family values" to attract homosexuals to conservatism is a rather ridiculous exercise.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 13, 2008
Mr. McClelland, as you can see people are biased to miss your message. Of course married couples of all gender combinations are interested in "lower taxes, greater growth, safer communities, and strong families", who really isn't. But then you are talking about true conservatism, not the 'neo-con' kind currently being practiced but the Republican party which really isn't conservative at all.
Your critics vacillate between views that seem to say that same gender married couples don't 'deserve' marriage or that they won't properly 'practice' it. Fortunately their points of view only work if we were in a vacuum of hypotheticals but we aren't. Many places and been advancing the no longer radical idea that citizens and society are better off married no matter what their gender combination and the results show they are right.
Go to eurostat.com and do a comparison of marriage rates before european countries started acknowledging same gender couples (1993) and the latest stats. You will find that all but one of the countries where marriage rates are up are also ones where same gender couples were acknowledged by the state. Doesn't mean that caused it but does show it is most definitely NOT a detriment.
Look at Seattle, the US city with the second highest percentage of gay citizens after San Francisco. The gay ghetto is gone, in a 15 city survey of HIV in young gay men it had the lowest rate of them all, gay bars are closing left and right. Why? Because gays are coupling up, they are settling down, their spouses and their families are acknowledged as valuable members of the city and state. You'll see letters to the local gay paper bemoaning the death of the local gay 'culture' but few people sharing their lament.
What the 'phobes don't understand is that persecution encourages ghettoization, it encourages promiscuity, it causes people to act out. They are part of the fuel of all the things they find bad about gay people.
I fully support that the state's should have one marriage contract, and that all citizens, gay or straight, can license it from the state. We as a society should be encouraging marriage as a concept and contract, that it should be entered in with the intention of it being the only time you're going to do so, and maybe even teach a bit about the many benefits of marriage to the individual, to their family and to society.
What's really more important - making marriage better for everyone or desperately trying to prevent 2% of the population from having access to it?
Comment by BobVB | June 13, 2008
AMAI:
“…must you regurgitate that crap everywhere?”
I don’t think I’m the one “regurgitating ‘crap’.” I’ve listened to gays tell a gullible public the same line for over 40 years. It all started in the late ‘60s when they said all they wanted was to be left alone. That was one of their earlier big lies, because they obviously want more than that because they have not only been regurgitating the same old lies from years ago, but have upped their demand to be more equal than the rest.
“This was actually a good article, making a good point and seeing the positive views that are likely held by anyone interested in raising children.”
This is not a good article raising any good points. The author presents no evidence to back up his claims. The reason he doesn’t is because there isn’t any, and the reason there isn’t any is because, as gays have openly stated, they are not interested in stable relationships. Gays are not interested in raising children. What they are interested in is reproducing more gay people; and since gays are physically incapable of reproduction, the way they have do it is the same as reproducing straight ones: you teach them when they are young. If gays were interested in stable relationships and communities, where are they?
“Try for a change to get beyond the immediate knee-jerk reaction that you seem hell-bent on putting forward in which you dismiss all same-sex couples on the basis of the behavior of SOME homosexuals.”
Oh, find one exception and extrapolate a whole universe? I don’t consider 43 percent to be “some” homosexuals; I consider it a large enough population to be representative of the whole. Would you do business with a bank that was correct in only 57 percent of its transactions?
I have presented my case with some facts, from gays themselves, no less. Neither you nor the author, on the other hand, have produced any. He has presented only his speculation to play on the public’s emotions. (“See? Gays want only what everyone else wants. How nice they must be.”) He is using the same tactic they used 40 years ago about just wanting to be left alone. You have not produced anything but an ad hominem attack, which is a real “knee-jerk reaction” typical of when somebody presents Leftists with a fact which contradicts their belief system, it so disturbs their false reality that they invariably lash out against the messenger with personal attacks and vituperation, while failing to address the underlying facts being asserted. This also helps explain why Leftists actively suppress (by shouting down) any speech which disturbs those false realities. This has reached a point in Canada that practicing one’s religion is almost a hate crime.
Comment by sedonaman | June 13, 2008
sedonaman, I don't know what to make of you - if you are quoting the Bell & Wienberg findings then you must know that they represent data collected in 1968 by placing advertising in San Francisco gay bathhouses and is no more representational of gays today than a study of swingers in the 70's would be of straights, or a study done in Vegas would show typical gambling habits.
Maybe you should refer to the GSS (Government Social Survey) which shows that straight men have a median number of 6 sexual partners in their lifetimes and gay men 7. Wow - huge difference. What it also shows is that about 20-25% of all men are pretty promiscuous, and I think most will admit is it far easier for a gay man to find outlets for these impulses than straight ones. But are these guys really the ones who end up marrying, gay or straight?
It is amusing that in one sentence you talk about what gays have accomplished in 40 years and then refer to data that's 40 years old and useless even then at talking about typical gays behavior. I don't know if you have been deceived or are just being deceptive but either way you are wrong and if these errors truly are your justifications for your opinions maybe its time for you to reevaluate them?
Comment by BobVB | June 13, 2008
Anyone recommending getting behind a decision that runs counter to the will of conservative and liberal voters, who defeated gay marriage in California by a more than two to one margin, is flying in the face the citizenry.
I've heard the arguments, but the question of gay marriage has never been about equality. It is about creation of new rights to meet a new, specialized need. I suspect if lawmakers did not attempt to monkey with marriage and instead crafted a civil partnership law that served the unique needs of gays, the vote could have gone their way.
Marriage, by definition, is the right of people of "legal age" to marry "one" person of the "opposite" sex. It is a right every homosexual person already has, which is precisely why they are not seeking it. It also is why they should have no interest in it.
Instead, they should start their own tradition and seek legal recognition of that tradition. It might be a legal arrangement that provides parity with marriage, which sidesteps the problem of "corrupting" the meaning of marriage, which doesn't sit well with as much as 75 percent of our population.
Marriage is important to many people because of what it is and what it stands for. The cavalier attitudes of some who seem to think they can change what it stands for, thus changing its meaning for everyone, is inconsiderate and, frankly, cruel.
There is a long history and tradition attached to the marriage of a man and woman, which sanctifies the natural order of things by a ceremonial union in the eyes of God (which traditionally then is respected by the state).
There are pretty good arguments for why homosexual relationships are not harmonious with nature, and in fact are a downright abomination of nature. They obviously run counter to the teachings of the Hebrew, Christian and Islamic faiths, which together make up the overwhelming majority in this country.
That doesn't mean we outlaw homosexuality, or even that we outlaw gay unions. Homosexuality is as real as any other variety of anomalous behavior or defect that is not in keeping with nature or normal human behavior. These and future types of people who may differ from normal in one respect or another must be accomodated, as they have special needs that our current institutions and rules cannot meet.
Government, when petitioned by homosexuals to provide a remedy for those who find the idea of marriage repulsive for the simple reason that the idea of a union with the opposite sex repulses or sickens them, must step up to meet their very real human and legal needs.
Civil unions that provide equal protections and rights seem like a pretty good answer. It's working out very well in several countries now. In fact, many atheists and other couples are opting for it instead of marriage, as they do not attach any special significance to the traditions, ceremony or sanctity of marriage.
Comment by nick adams | June 13, 2008
Nick, a mere 5% of the registered voters at the time got that bill passed - apathy is not the 'will of the citizenry'. That's why we have a constitution so that even a real majority of the voters can't vote to do unconstitutional things.
As to marriage you misunderstand it - the contract offered by the state is not marriage, it is a contract licensed in support of marriages. And all citizens have a natural right to marry, i.e. to pair-bond with another via the oxytocin-vasopresson mediated mammalian pair-bonding response. And yes, some citizens to naturally marry those of the same gender. Holding up a licensing restriction that ignores these facts is why the it was deemed unconstitutional - you can't tell a citizen they can only license a marriage contract with someone they would never want to marry and can never do so with someone they would.
There are excellent reasons why having some people being gay is 100% natural too and if you are going to pull up religion all I have to do is point out that a number of churches are marrying same gender couples. If religion is the reason than marriage equality is mandatory.
Civil unions would be great if that was all the state did - again, this is the US, all citizens have the same rights and the government is obligated to treat them equitably. I would be more than happy to have the word 'marriage' relegated to religious use only but really, what chance is there of that happening especially when marriage in this country is administered by the individual states?
No, we license marriage contracts in the US and that's what its going to be. Some states have written discrimination into their constitutions and a futile gesture - like it or not gay people marry, marry those of the same gender - same underlying biology, same desires, same benefits to them and society and same reasons that they should have license to the state contract in support of their marriages just like everyone else.
Comment by BobVB | June 13, 2008
Sorry - "a mere 25%" (woke up out of a sound sleep and realized I'd left out a digit)
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
Bob,
Your attempts to make homosexual behavior into a "natural" behavior through the use of scientific references that you don't appear to have a clear grasp of notwithstanding, "marriage" in and of itself is not "natural". Marriage is not a neurochemical response that facilitates social bonding. A neurochemical response that facilitates social bonding is, well, just that. It's what keeps species sexually reproducing and sustaining offspring. It also doesn't in any way imply commitment or monogamy. Marriage is a religious (or "intellectual" if you prefer) construct that represents an abstract social/religious commitment between a man and woman. The government licensing a neurochemical pair-bonding response would be essentially what Nick Adams is referring to - a civil union. If a civil union represents the exact same secular rights and benefits as a "marriage", just with any religious connotation removed, I don't see why that wouldn't be enough for homosexual couples. In fact, I don't see why they would want their "union" recognized as a "marriage", since the religious institutions that it represents all reject homosexuality unequivocally. Doesn't make much sense.
In reference to your 25% "will of the citizenry" - you are, quite simply, incorrect. If only 25% of the citizenry shows up to the referendum, or the election, they get to decide the issue. You are free in this country NOT to vote, and if you make that choice, you quite simply do not count. So yes, it is perfectly reasonable for 25%, or 15%, or 5% of the population to decide the "will of the citizenry". The federal constitution does not provide any recognition of opinion for the people who don't show up. Which is irrelevant anyway since "marriages" and civil unions are decided by states - not the federal government.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 14, 2008
For the record, homosexuality being "natural" or "unnatural", or the existent or non-existent biological explanation for homosexuality as a practice is utterly irrelevant to the original article. That wasn't the point. It is not relevant to the author's thesis. To restate my original post, trying to draw homosexual "families" to the GOP/Conservative side by making appeals to "family values" is doomed to failure. It is fallacious to assume that all homosexual (or heterosexual) couples have children and families and will be attracted to GOP/conservative models of family values out of a sense of self-interest.
Given the way this discussion has veered, I think I'll make this my last comment here. Having the proverbial "Adam and Steve" argument isn't particularly interesting anymore after 25 years.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 14, 2008
BobVB:
If my data is outdated and I am wrong, where are the stable gay relationships and stable communities they have built?
Comment by sedonaman | June 14, 2008
Patrick, I couldn't disagree more about what you think 'marriage' is. Its natural, people couple up regardless of government as the concept of 'common-law' indicates. And we do naturally marry - yes other mammals that come into estrus bond and separate, fortunately we don't - we can even engage in sex even with the female is gravid allowing for continual reinforcement of the pair-bonding until it becomes habitual.
But you are right that's not the real issue - I would agree that embracing marriage equality will do little for the GOP but that's because it is no longer small 'c' conservative, which was the kind of 'conservative' I took the author to be commenting on.
And sedonaman, there where ever you aren't looking. Read the news of all these people together for 20, 30 longer years going to marry in California. I've been with my spouse for 18 years and I only know a couple single friends - everyone else has been married for years. Of all the people I know in San Francisco only one lives in the Castro district and yep, he's single. You're looking at the places single people would gravitate to and ignoring that married couples live anywhere they want. In Seattle the recent William Institute study said there were almost 6,000 same gender couples in just metro-Seattle alone. If marriage was promoted as the universal gold standard of relationships what do you think that number would do but go up even higher?
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB:
Cool. I have to go find evidence that proves what you are saying. I have stated here many times that the burden of proof is on the advocate. I'm not falling for your "why not?" trap.
Comment by sedonaman | June 14, 2008
Bobvb,
1. It doesn't matter how many voters vote, the result is what counts, and it is the voting citizenry speaking its mind, the result being the will of the people who have the will to vote. Surely you understand how our system works.
2.I noted that marriage is and union of man and woman under God and by long tradition, which is then recognized by the state, so clearly I agree with you that states license and support it.
3. As for homosexuality being 100 percent natural, I would agree in that it is a 100 percent natural anomoly. So is mental retardation. (note: not a value judgment, just a simple recognition of the definition of the word "normal")
4. Since states adminster marriage, they may define it as they please. The equitable treatment to which you refer is handled by something the state might call civil unions.
5.As for telling a citizen that the state only recognizes their marriage to one person of legal age of the opposite sex, it most certainly can determine what it is willing to recognize. If the state did not have that ability, then it could not create and recognize the civil unions I proposed. That ability by the state also allows it to recognize that gay couples may have more than one legal spouse, providing it extends that courtesy/right to heterosexual couples, as well.
6. I am sure you understand that this is a nation of laws governed by the people, for the people. And knowing where the people stand is important here, as that opinion will be the driving force behind changes to state constitutions, perhaps eventually to the U.S. Constitution. Disrespect the will of the people at your own risk.
With court decision such as iminent domain last year and now U.S. Constitutional protections for foreign fighters on foreign soil, we are approaching a point when people are getting fed up and need to unroll the grand document, take a quill to it and spell it out all over again just to make sure everyone understands what the definition of "is" is.
Comment by nick adams | June 14, 2008
sedonaman, if you are going to have an opinion you have to base it on something, right? And the US is all about equal rights and presumption of innocence and all, right? So if you are going to try and justify having special rights for just some citizens it really is your responsibility to show justification for it and you have failed in that regard, correct? I have shown you data, I have told you who compiled it.
Nick,
1) of course I do - we are a representational democracy - we elect people who then make the decisions. Direct democracy is a safety valve, not our standard way of passing legislation. Marriage equality has legislatively been passed twice in California - blocked by the governor because he said he wanted a judicial decision. He got one.
2) sorry, 2 atheists can license the civil contract of marriage without a bat of an eye - it has nothing to do with any god. Our right to marry comes from beyond government, you think its magical, I think its biological, neither of us thinks it comes from civil law.
3) And so is left handedness - its not 'normal' either if you are using it as synonym for 'average'. Red hair isn't normal, or just about anything else in that regard. I mean if you think sexual gender attraction is genetic then the possibility of same gender attraction is all but a biological certainty - every man has every single gene a woman has, women have all of men's but the 'Y'. That some people who have the 'I like men' pathways active would also be men is just natural variation.
4) No, states merely license a contract in support of marriage, they can no more make a citizen 'married' than they can make them you 'tall' or 'smart'. And if they are going to license the contract it needs to be reasonable available to citizens. Since some citizens can only reasonable be expected to marry people of the same gender it really does have to be available to them too.
5) You are proposing two special rights, that each citizen can only have one of at a time. Why? Why not just let all married couples license the same contract in keeping with our tradition of all citizens being equal with equal rights and equal protection under the lawn?
6) Absolutely true. And as recent polling has shown the majority of Americans don't think the government should interfere in the ability of 2 same gender citizens to marry. Only those 65 and older think they should. Special rights for just some citizens is coming to an end, just a matter of time.
As to eminent domain the SCOTUS merely said that it was not proscribed by the federal Constitution and encouraged states to pass legislation to prevent it. Look what popular voting did in California in that regard - they rejected the initiative that would have really prevented it and passed one sponsored by those most vested in keeping things the way they are. So much for informed mob rule. ;) And to think that rights we consider a human right are somehow not applicable to some definitely is a sign that this great nation is in decline. A great people don't treat others as subhuman, they don't torture, they don't declare wars against a military tactic thereby ensuring they are starting a war without end. And they don't say that only some citizens have a right to license their marriage with the state.
But I think we see these issues differently.
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB:
“…the US is all about equal rights and presumption of innocence and all, right?
That doesn’t mean there has to be equal outcomes for everyone. This quote will explain my position:
“The United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.’
“These provisions, however, do notcreate a general requirement of equality. The law does not and cannot treat all persons – young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor, male and female, and so on – as equal in all regards. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Blacks, women, and 18-year-olds have the right to vote, while aliens and felons do not, not because of any principle or requirement of equality (or “equal protection”), but because they were given the right by the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, respectively. [Note that these were actions by the legislature, not the court.]
“There is no requirement of equality other than the tautology that all people must be treated in accordance with their legal rights.
“When judges decide that some homosexual unions have the same legal status as marriage, they are not, as they invariably claim, enforcing a legal or constitutional requirement of equality – there is none. What they are doing instead is legislating for homosexuals’ rights other than those granted by the legislature. Decisions extending marital rights to homosexual unions do so on no other basis or authority than the fact that full societal acceptance, if not endorsement, of homosexuality is the current cause célèbre in today’s academia. The primary function of judicial opinions explaining these decisions is to deny or conceal this fact. …
Laws, people must learn, particularly laws stated in sweeping terms, are dangerous things.”
“Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts” – Lino A. Graglia, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin [Emphasis added]
“So if you are going to try and justify having special rights for just some citizens it really is your responsibility to show justification for it and you have failed in that regard, correct?”
I’m not arguing for special rights for anyone. Marriage is not even a right. If I wanted to marry but could not find a woman willing to reciprocate, is it the government’s responsibility, as part of protecting my rights, to find and force some woman to marry me?
“I have shown you data, I have told you who compiled it.”
What data? You’ve provided none, undoubtedly because there are none.
Comment by sedonaman | June 14, 2008
sedonaman, there are many court precedences that say marriage is a fundamental right, both state and federal. Google is your friend. And so you are arguing for special rights for citizens that marry someone of the opposite gender for state support of their marriages and insisting that citizens that marry someone of the same gender be ignored by same. Special rights anyway you cut it.
And as for your inability to find a woman that wants to marry you, that's your problem - all the state is required to do is not pretend you didn't when you eventually do. Same as your rights to life, liberty and all the rest - none of them are guarantees.
And if all the Seattle data is 'none' then your blinders are on way too tight for much of anything to get through I would suppose. You will believe what you want to, and I'm sure with your frame of mind you'd rather cling to 40 year old bathhouse data than make an search for the truth.
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB
Like any deviant sexual behavior, including pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc, homosexuality deviates from normal sexual behavior. This is clear enough and scientifically proven. It also is one of the instances were religious doctrine and science agree.
The correctness of heterosexual behavior being obvious, the question then becomes with heterosexuality a 10 on the sexual behavior normalcy scale, where is homosexuality?
Your contention is that it also is a 10? If so, you really do need to explain yourself better. If you are right, you should be able to make a perfectly good case for why it would be acceptable and normal for every living animal on earth to be homosexual. I can reciprocate and make a case for every living animal being heterosexual, and guarantee my task will be easier.
But apart from your absurd notions about what constitutes normal sexual behvior, your notion that marriage is biological is interesting. Marriage is a human construct and isn't required for sex, reproduction, companionship. It is a traditional and religious ceremonial pact recognizing the bond beteween man and wife.
The sillyness of your argument is obvious. If marriage were anything more than what I describe; if it had ever been anything cose to what you are attempting to make it, there would be no debate. Instead you find yourself trying to persuade.
Your contention then is that we've had it wrong for all these thousands of years. Pretty extraordinary claim. Of course as soon as you establish that marriage is a recognized biological term among respected scientists, I will pay your idea a little more mind.
Comment by nick adams | June 14, 2008
Please Nick, common sense:
It is perfectly normal for a human being to be attracted to sexually mature males and females. Your complaint in this instance is solely you don't like the gender of the person being attracted. This puts it in stark contrast to all your other examples where no one is supposed to be attracted to prepubescent children, dead bodies, animals. You surely can see the clear difference?
And what kind of 'absurd' notion is that a 'normal' characteristic can or even should be the only one presented, straight, gay or whatever? That sounds desperate. Of course everyone shouldn't be homosexual but then everyone shouldn't drink the milk of purple cows either. Saying the truth depends on justifying bizarre hypotheticals isn't even rational.
And no, marriage is not a human construct - we see such pairings in nature, we see them occur in human society spontaneously without superstition or government's intervention. Again, the fact that the government discovers common-law marriages makes your supposition just amusing.
And like your peers, you are arguing for a specific answer. There is massive amounts of data on the oxytocin vasopressin mediated mammalian pair-bonding response. Not only is it the basis of human pair-bonding we even see that it not only benefits the couples themselves but the society they live in. That you haven't bothered to even look at the data available shows that your 'little more mind' isn't really interested.
As to being 'wrong for thousands of years' its odd that you are unaware of the same gender marriages that are documented for 'thousands of years'. Again, marriage is a natural state, it has only been licensed by governments for the last 500 years or so. And yes we were mistaken - we thought that people who pair-bonded with their own gender were just indulging a vice or it was a 'bad habit' when study after study is showing there are basic biological differences, neurological differences and even cognitive differences between people of the same sex but different sexual orientations.
Pretending that marriage is 'made up' and not a real biological drive flies in the fact of facts, observation and just common sense. Really, there's no superstition, magic or law required.
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB,
1. You have yet to show us scientific references to "marriage" being used as a biological term to describe not only human, but lower animal pairing/mating.
2. Is this your theory?
If this is your theory, please be good enough to tell us. Yours is an extraordinary and unique claim. Where did it come from? Please spare me mammalian pair bonding. My sister was mammalian pair bonding with a no-good mammal for a number of years, but they were never married. There was no marriage.
Also, you might want to consider how confused your argument is. In one breath you explain that marriage is not a human construct and in the next refer to it as part of common law, which of course is a human construct.
Also, please refrain from bashing. I have not made a single value judgment about homosexuality or gender, and I certainly have not complained about sexual attractions between the same sex. My argument has been kept to the discussion of marriage as it has always been understood and the degree to which homosexual behavior deviates from normal human sexual behavior (heterosexuality).
Again, I have never heard marriage defined as animal pair bonding. I have heard of animal pair bonding being used to describe animal pair bonding. Marriage could be what you say it is, but I would suggest that someone more than you would have to agree to make it so.
Please, point us to references where "marriage" is used interchangeably with mating/animal pairing.
Comment by nick adams | June 14, 2008
Kudos, BobVB! it's very refreshing to hear a rational voice in this place. It's a shame that so many intellectual conservatives are so desperate to force their religion into the political arena.
What is the definition of natural, sedonaman? Occurs in nature, is it not? There is a definite purpose for homosexuality to occur and that is to perform the function of birth control. It's unlikely to disappear from our biological make-up (as a species) for quite some time. It is likely to remain a minority group, It's important to ensure that the rights of minorities are not abrogated. The fact that "a majority" votes to disenfranchise a minority does not make it right.
Comment by AMAI | June 14, 2008
Again nick if you have bothered to look up the research you know that they use the fictional attraction and subsequent marriage of romeo and juliet as prime examples of oxytocin mediate pair-bonding. You are just being pedantic and evasive. All our rights derive from our human natures, even the right to marry.
And yes, your sister was married to the guy. Marriage is a natural state, you are confusing magical rites and legal contracts of the same name with the biological reality.
And when were you bashed, or any more so than your claims of 'silliness' and such. Are you referring to the observation you seem to have a particular answer you want to reach and are ignoring anything that gets in the way of reaching it? Again, how do I respond to someone who doesn't acknowledge that humans are just another kind of mammal, 98.4% genetically identical to other primates, and far more similar to them than we are different?
Ifs a fact that marriage is natural and requires nothing other than the two parties agreement to bond and has been understood to be so for centuries as per the example of common-law marriages extending back to greco-roman times. That you want to pretend it requires more doesn't change the fact it doesn't. We now know that this spontaneous pair-bonding has a biological mechanism as its origin, that they historically were unaware of the specifics doesn't make it any less true.
if your only way of limiting marriage a s special right is trying to say its a made up thing and has no basis in the real world there isn't much I can say to change your mind - that's an item of faith that just doesn't jive with even what science, legal precedence, and again, common sense.
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB,
Thanks much for pointing me to "they."
I understand "they" is one of the most respected athorities in science, law, and the social constructs of man.
Again, if you are not espousing some pet theory of your own, kindly tell us who "they" are/is.
You are making the argument that there is no such thing as marriage as it has been understood and defined for centuries. But your contention is extraordinary. If you want to rewrite history, law and science, you really do have to give us something more than "they" say so.
Really, sir, "they?" And you charge me with being pedantic and evasive?
Again, you use the word "marriage" and pair bonding/mating of animals interchangeably. Who else of consequence does so? Who are "they?"
Comment by nick adams | June 14, 2008
Nick, I'm not going to do your basic research for you - we've all played that game - I give you references, you just pretend they don't apply and resort to strawmen. Again, if you are bright enough to respond you are bright enough to type 'oxytocin pair bonding' into a Google search and find links galore. If you aren't, then there again is no real point in your participating in the discussion. If you were sincerely interested in discussion you'd bone up on the basics.
Speaking of strawmen I have never said there is 'no such thing as marriage as it has been understood and defined for centuries' - the existence of common-law marriage has existed for all of western civilization!!!! That naturally occurring marriage can be discovered by government is proof positive that it is not dependent on religion or government. You ignore this over and over but it blows your contention that marriage is a made up concept right out of the water.
And humans are animals, you don't think humans have oxytocin mediated pair-bonding responses? You don't think there is a biological reason that humans naturally do? Come one - combative deliberate ignorance doesn't help your case - read about oxytocin mediated responses and address your problems with that - not pretend it doesn't exist because I won't spoon feed it to you.
Oh and thanks AMAI - as you can see their last ditch ploy is to pretend that marriage is a made up thing that has no basis in biology and so they can make it be anything they want it to since its not real. ;) But then if that's the best they can do its shows why they lose at every turn.
Comment by BobVB | June 14, 2008
BobVB
You might want to do some basic research for yourself. I recommend you start with your recommendation to me and do a google search.
It is not chemical reactions in the brain that lead to creating animal pairing that I question. You are making the extraordinary leap that marriage is not a construct of humans and is in fact oxytocin induced animal pair bonding.
Yet no definition of marriage includes oxytocin pair bonding and no definition of oxytocin pair bonding includes marriage.
No definition but yours, that is. If this is a thesis of yours, please provide citations.
oxytocin.org, which is the first to appear on the google search you recommended, not only does not make your case, the word marriage is not used in any context. While many, many pages of theories/hypotheses about the role of chemicals in animal pairing appear in the first 30 or so Google Web site results on your recommended search, none have anything at all to say about marriage, much less make a case that marriage, as you say, is not a human construct.
Again sir, it is late in the season for a snow job. Your contention is not supported by the evidence you pointed me to. Please point us to where marriage and oxytocin pair bonding are used interchangbly, as you use them.
You reject the definition of marriage, apparently because it does not support your political/social ideology, but that doesn't change the facts. My sister most certainly was not married to the no-good bum she lived with. How do I know? Simple, she was married to someone else when she moved in with him, and still was when she moved out. Marriage and pairing thus are not the same, as you can see. My sister sampled both simultaneously. Futhermore, evidence that pair bonding and marriage are not one in the same is realized when you consider that one can be married without being paird (or bonded) at all, as my sister illustrated by being estranged from her husband.
But enough of the obvious; please do go to oxytocin.org and read up. You sent me there, so it is the least you can do. You, like I, will find nothing about marriage to cite and absolutely nothing to back your contentions about the definition of marriage.
Comment by nick adams | June 15, 2008
nick, that you are just trying to deny the obvious and tossing out so many red herrings your desperation is obvious.
I have done the research as I assume you have - even the conservative site waitformarriage.org makes the oxytocin marriage connection and explains why. And calling it the 'animal' pair bonding response as if humans weren't animals doesn't give you any more credibility. From before there were words humans were marrying via this biological mechanism, no churches or governments required. You are putting the johnny come latelies to the front of the line when they are just pale copies of the real thing.
All our rights derive from our natures, our biological natures, and marriage is no exception. Yes, trying to confuse the issue by using the word in two different contexts is a great red herring but transparent. The state only licenses a contract in support of marriages it doesn't marry people. If your sister was licensed with one and actually living as married with another than the contracted one was the sham.
But that is the point - your only hope of trying to make the state deny your fellow citizens their right to license their marriages is to turn the state contract into a caricature of its origins, its merely a contract that you can twist to only support the citizens you want.
Whine all you want, the reason we marry is because of this 'animal' pair-bonding mechanism which occurs naturally without intervention of cults or governments as proven by their acknowledgment of common-law marriage.
And if the state is going to license a contract in support of marriages, then all the citizens need to have reasonable license to the contract with a spouse regardless of their gender.
Again, keep trying to pretend that marriage is made-up, no one is going to buy it and it just illustrates how desperate those trying to deny citizens any license to the civil contract are. As the US Supreme Court has said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," and is just as true for those that marry those of the same gender.
Comment by BobVB | June 15, 2008
Against my better judgment, I'm going to pop back in here for one comment.
Bob,
Let's make this exercise easier for you, and for everyone with whom you are relentlessly arguing. Here is the dictionary definition of "Marriage" as referenced from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
"–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger."
That is the definition of "Marriage" in the English language in our society. It is you, sir, who are bastardizing the definition of a term to support your argument, which was the contention I raised in my first comment. Neurochemical pair bonding is not marriage, because neurochemical pair bonding does not match the English language definition of the word. Natural scientists would never refer to neurochemical pair bonding as "marriage", because marriage is not a natural science construct or term. The only "sciences" whose purview marriage falls under are sociology and anthropology. Do not confuse natural science and social science with one another - they are not the same, each is a very distinct field of study.
Beyond that, your understanding of the science of neurochemical pair bonding is at odds with all of the relevant papers that one finds when researching the topic. Neurochemical pair bonding affects different species and families of animals quite differently based on their neurochemical responses to the chemicals currently identified as triggering the pair bonding response. As I said before, neurochemical pair bonding in no way implies a commitment or "contract" to one other animal, of any gender, exclusively. It implies no sharing of assets, no joint responsibility in offspring rearing, no social duty to the other party. Indeed, an animal that pair bonds may be monogamous, serially monogamous, or not monogamous at all. It is possible to pair bond with more than one other animal. Some animals have that reaction, other don't, and there are differences in the pair bonding response even within the same species. Neurochemical pair bonding is neurochemical pair bonding. Marriage is defined for you above. You may not use the two terms interchangeably or synonymously. It is not correct to do so. No source in natural science does so, or would do so. If that is going to be the central premise to your argument, then your argument is fallacious, and not worthy of discussion any further than that.
Furthermore, there is no "right" to marriage defined anywhere in the federal constitution. Marriages are not licensed federally. Your rights outlined in the federal constitution have absolutely no bearing on the discussion you wish to have about whether or not homosexual couples enjoy an equal "right" to "marriage" (by any definition). The right to free association is not a right to marriage. I am free to associate with 12 year old girls if I so choose. I am not free to marry one - I do not have that "right". The "rights" not defined by the federal constitution may be defined by the states. Look to your state constitution for the definition of your marriage "rights", if any exist. Look to your state's legal statutes if you come up empty.
Unless you can agree on the above definitions of the terms "marriage" and "rights", any further discussion is useless. You will be making an argument based on an incorrect understanding of the definitions of the terms central to the discussion, and consequently you will be arguing separate things from everyone else.
All of that aside, I'd like to repeat once again that absolutely none of this is in any way relevant to the topic addressed in the original article. In brief, the topic addressed by the article was whether or not "conservatives" should embrace homosexual "marriage" in order to draw in homosexual "families" who would, it is assumed (without reason), be attracted to conservative political ideals. I bring it up just in case anyone wishes to reorient this discussion back onto (or anywhere even close to) the topic from which it began.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 15, 2008
BobVB,
I am not trying to avoid the obvious. In fact, I am trying to discover what you keep assuring us is obvious - marriage is not a human construct and that "marriage" is chemical/bilological.
I did as you recommended and researched where you pointed me. Scientists, as Mr. Mulligan points out, do not use the terms interchangably and being biologists, in fact have no use for the term "marriage." Why would they?
It appears you have nothing but a odd definition of marrage that no one, or at least no one you would not be embarassed to share with us, holds. Unless you can establish that someone credible shares your position, I am done indulging you and your silly argument.
I hit every online dictionary I could find (not that I really needed to) and not one defines marriage the way you do. If, as you say, your position is just common sense, why is it so hard to find anyone with anything in common with your notion?
It shouldn't be too hard to back your position if you have done the research you claim. Just show us where you get your ideas.
Back on topic, I don't think there is a need to push/cater to homosexual voters. The gay people I know who have any interest, have strong politicl opinions based on the strength of the governing philosophy and core principles. In that sense, they are no different than most.
Certainly some gays ask only what will their leaders do for gay rights, gay marriage, I'm not convinced gays are single issue voters.
Many gays have evaluated conservatism and gravitate to it. They may or may not like the Republican on the ticket (I know I don't), but they believe conservatism offers the best chance for the country to remain safe, prosper and realize the dream upon which America was founded. They don't need to be sold on the idea of smaller government and fewer laws and regulations.
That said, I don't see why if states recognize marriage, they should not recognize a similar commitment between people of the same sex. That doesn't mean the state has to, as obviously that is up to the people and legislators of the state. As I have pointed out, civil unions seem to be working very well in countries using them, as they provide a parity of rights with those united in marriage.
I think the best thing Republicans can do for gays caught up in the marriage issue is assure them they do not support a Constitutional ammendment banning same sex unions. Leaving it to states, which are pefectly able to craft laws supporting same sex couples without torquing off people with a vested interest in the traditional meaning of marriage/holy matrimony. Striking a balance is what good politicians do best.
There will be some who will contend that same sex couples should not be accommodated in any way. There will be some gays who say they will settle for nothing but "marriage" stamped on their licenses. I think it is politically safe and prudent to tell both to pound salt.
Comment by nick adams | June 15, 2008
Well I'm glad you are done because we are at obvious loggerheads. That you think that this thing called 'a fundamental freedom' and key to our 'pursuit of happiness' is merely our right to a civil contract is a good place to end it. While there may be a few lawyers around the nation that get that excited about bits of paper I'm pretty sure most know that 'marriage' has a far more personal and integral origins than contract licensed by the state.
But the conversation wasn't wasted - I am sure the lurkers learned many things and we've seen that you are quick to abandon some of the more tired 'justifications' for trying to ignore some citizen's right to marry. But that right, just like all our rights, comes from our biology - if there was no desire to marry there would be no right to do so and our desires come from our biology, not contract law. ;)
Comment by BobVB | June 15, 2008
Thanks for citing nothing, again.
Be happy to join you on topic.
Comment by nick adams | June 15, 2008
Patrick resorting to dictionaries to decide what marriage is is almost as bad as Nick saying its just a contract. As you know there are dictionaries that do specifically include same gender marriages as yours does in part in section 4.
As to your obfuscation on pair-bonding I fully admit it is expressed differently in different kinds of animals. In mammals it is reinforced by having sex, and low and behold in the human animal we are in a constant state of being receptive to sexual arousal; fertile, infertile, gravid, nursing, it makes not difference - we are capable of reinforcing our pair-bond at anytime, forever. One might say we are designed for pair-bonding. Yes, some can do so with more than one but societies right now acknowledge that in their understanding of marriage.
Your denial of the right to marry flies in the face of federal and state rulings across the board. Our rights are innate, they do not come from the government rather an ethical government respects acknowledges them and respects them. The idea in a land based on the idea we all have a right to pursuit happiness but we don't have a right to marry so so bankrupt its always amazing that people bring it up - its like they have never actually been in love and so it all seems like the basis of marriage is made up.
But you are right is side tracks from the actual article, but again I didn't see it as saying that supporting them would support any current political agenda, but rather it that families naturally support things that real small 'c' conservatives value. Again, the current GOP has nothing to do with most small 'c' conservative values. I saw it as an argument to an end - not that acceptance would lead them to a particular party but rather a particular way of thinking, a more small 'c' way of thinking. Maybe when the GOP has turned around or a real conservative party emerges they might even switch parties. But the benefits are more in changing their attitudes and long term, not a short term switch to get more GOP votes.
Comment by BobVB | June 15, 2008
No need to cite Nick, you deny there is an innate right to marry (in contradiction to every court in the land) as a result you present it as a made up contract that has no basis in reality or our biology in spite of reams of data that shows we pair-bond as a species. You are arguing in a lala-land that is convenient to your desired result and ignores the way that humans really are.
People naturally couple up - had to believe anyone would even think they could claim otherwise as you have. The state licenses a contract to facilitate and support this desirable condition and since it does it needs to make it reasonable available to all citizens. Again, no more 'citing' needed - marriage equality is the right way to go derives from the facts of our human natures. We don't have an innate right to a contract, that's just silly. ;)
Comment by BobVB | June 15, 2008
Like I said, no citiation at all, so no talky. On topic, please.
Comment by nick adams | June 15, 2008
"Patrick resorting to dictionaries to decide what marriage is is almost as bad as Nick saying its just a contract."
Actually, BobVB, I like seeing what the dictionary has to say on a subject, time to time. Definitions are only as precise as we've made them. In this case, using the definition given, a lot of contractual relationships are covered by the term these days, not just the union of a man and a woman for whatever purposes they may have chosen, but also same sex couples, businesses, even including the use of the word to denote the abstract essence of what successful marriage is truly about:
"5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
merger."
I think a lot of problems started with making it unapproved to have children OUTSIDE of marriage. Marriage and child-rearing do not always coincide. In fact, based on the number of divorces involving children, the percentage has more of a "quite a lot" definitely verging on "too much" of the time feel about it. Add to that figure the number of marriages where parents stay together "for the children" but are not happy in their marriage with each other.
People are not properly honest with each other about what they truly really want from their marriages with each other. It's definitely time to get everyone thinking about their own marriages with their spouses (or hit songs, as the case may be) and stop meddling in what other people are or want to be doing with their marriages.
Comment by AMAI | June 15, 2008
This discussion has become a riot. BobVB and AMAI are saying that because homosexuality exists, it is normal. Well, substance abuse and addiction exist, but it would be difficult to convince people that those activities are normal. Pride, envy, greed, avarice, wrath, lust, and gluttony exist, but who agrees they are normal behavior?
AMAI, in one of the most preposterous, if not the most preposterous statement, claims that homosexuality exists for … birth control!!!! What a leap when you consider that all living things are driven to reproduce to ensure survival. As I have stated before, homosexuals are not that different when it comes to surviving. They want to proliferate, but they do it the only way they can – by capturing the young.
Then, to demonstrate her ignorance of the purpose of an organized society, she says, “I think a lot of problems started with making it unapproved to have children OUTSIDE of marriage.” Perhaps AMAI wants an anarchy. If so, here is the link http://www.simplyanarchy.com .
But my favorite is AMAI’s complaint that we are trying to force our religious beliefs on those like her. Forced ideology is forced ideology, so that’s rich coming from a member of a group that has been trying to force everyone else to modify their consciences and beliefs to conform to the homosexuals’. By what right does she make that demand? Not only that, but in an organized society, someone’s beliefs will always be forced on others. There hasn’t been a law ever enacted that doesn’t force someone’s concept of right and wrong onto society.
Comment by sedonaman | June 16, 2008
sedonaman, if waffling on the the usage of the word 'normal' is all you got you ain't got nothing. And the idea that gay people 'recruit' is there anyone who can even be fooled by such rubbish anymore?! I mean if such were true you'd see changes in the occurrence of homosexuality in relationship to the tolerance of 'recruitment' yet in repressive societies and accepting ones the relative % of gay people remains the same. its just a normal variation, activation of biological gender attraction mechanisms that are potentially there in every single citizen regardless of their own gender.
As to 'forcing' this is about the government treating all its citizens equally with them able to choose for themselves if they want to be different. You don't want to marry someone of the same gender don't - your sect or cult doesn't think it should happen then don't - just respect the right of others to not believe as your cult does! Catholics have no problem with respecting that divorced people in 'pretend marriages' not of their faith still deserve the same equality under the law. The government is supposed to be belief system neutral - It will license the contract to atheists, cultists, satanists, whatever - because marriage has an underlying etiology beyond government and cults and the contract licensed by the state is completely secular.
The article isn't about religion, its about the effect that licensing these same gender marriages will have on the licensed couple and I don't even really see how it can be disputed - what family doesn't become more small 'c' conservative once its parents are looking out for someone else other than just themselves? Other than the few complaining 'its not really marriage' where are the people sayiing that it will harm them or society? Where is there reasoned mechanism that this 'non-betterment' would occur and any indication that this is indeed true?
Comment by BobVB | June 16, 2008
Ya know, sedonaman, there is a difference between forcing BELIEFS" on others, and defining Man's Rights, and holding such definition as KNOWLEDGE, i.e., knowing where the line is or should be drawn between each and every human being. My right to my life and your right to your life limits what each of us may do. You may define "Marriage" to mean a union between a man and a woman, and would rather not see same-sex marriages. But you cannot have the right to prevent those who define marriage to be a union between two (or more) adults, acting without coercion.
It's a shame that you are so narrow in your thinking that you cannot see what I mean that homosexuality is actually NATURE's method of birth control. If some people are naturally attracted sexually to members of their own gender, there is a reduced chance of those people reproducing. They might adopt a child but the chances ARE reduced that they will even be interested in reproducing. Ergo, it is a method of birth control. It's primitive, no doubt about it. But of course, if you have a problem with evolution and mechanisms that develop for a specific purpose, then you would think my theory preposterous.
Sorry that you don't get it.
Comment by AMAI | June 16, 2008
BobVB, AMAI:
It's impossible for the government to treat everyone the same. Grow up.
Comment by sedonaman | June 17, 2008
I'm not sure if this is what AMAI is driving at, but is the recommendation for conservatives to get behind gay marriage/gay families as part of its platform on the grounds that same sex mating is not only not unnatural, but in fact natural - nature's way (an evolutionary mechanism), meant to control population?
I'm listening. At least it is an argument. Now, how would you present this hypothesis to conservatives, and what is the evidence that the reason there are homosexuals is to reduce the population? (also, how do homosexuals feel about being chosen as sacrifical lambs in nature's birth control scheme?)
I understand the obvious, that two people of the same sex can't have children, but how do you convince conservatives that the circumstance is by nature's/God's/whoever's design? It seems like a difficult task, and raises question about whether murder, war, AIDS and other killers might not be driven by the same forces for the same benefit. The implications are extraordinary. AIDS, for instance, infects homosexual men at a far greater rate than it does heterosexual men and women or lesbians. It suggests that nature may be trying to thin the population of homosexual men for some reason.
Such conclusions are natural if we assume that the cause is evidenced by the effect, be it birth control or death.
Comment by nick adams | June 17, 2008
sedonaman, but they give all citizens license to the contract of marriage with a expectable spouse.
nick! so you don't want to stay on topic! Fantastic!
Actually AMAI is wrong, the effect of 2.4% of males being non-breeders would be of no consequence since the 97.6% of their brethren would easily take up any slack. Female homosexuality in an evolutionary sense is unimportant since the males will pester the female into breeding whether she's 'into it' or not - might get a bigger eye-roll before hand but it will be a rare individual that avoids impregnation.
The evolutionary benefit of homosexuality is social - the U of Chicago study found that 10% of men have some fashion of sexual attraction to their own gender even if they don't act on it (about 5% don't post puberty). But it creates a class of males that are innately attracted to other males, particularly alpha males who normally don't interact well together at all. Lets look at stereotypes a bit and think just who is usually in the role of the alpha male's subordinate who goes between the alpha males, smoothing the path between them for cooperation and mutual benefit? Hmmm? Having some males able to be even subliminally sexually attracted to males makes the whole 'let's build a civilization!' thing so much easier, doesn't it?
As to your AIDS, you need a class in epidemiology - any disease spread by an agent will have a greater impact in a population where every new infected individual is a potential vector because they also spread that agent. That plus the smaller population means that unchecked such a disease will rapidly saturate any vector connected element of that population. Used to have the same trouble on indian reservations with syphilis and TB. Not that they are more prone, they just vector between a limited number of people so the changes are much higher of infection.
Its why all STDs, especially those transmitted by semen, will hit the promiscuous side of the gay male community harder and faster. Solution of course is make monogamy the gold standard, maybe even help reinforce the bonds between two person monogamous couples. Gee, how would we ever do that?
Going to call to 'get on topic' again? :)
Comment by BobVB | June 17, 2008
BobVB:
“…but they give all citizens license to the contract of marriage with a expectable spouse.”
There was never the intent by the founding fathers to include sodomites in with the legal meaning of marriage. “Infamy” is was a typical feeling on the subject:
From “The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799;” John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:
“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose” [Emphasis it was in the original].
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=761
As I have said three or four times, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, for the government to treat everyone the same. That is Marxist/Leninist thought. Paraphrasing economist Vilfredo Pareto, if treatment of the people by government were equal, it would be at a low level. We are not even talking about a right here; marriage is not a right. If it were, then what about a marriage in which one wants a divorce but the other doesn’t? Since we have no-fault divorce, divorce wins; so, if marriage is a right, the one not wanting it would have his/her rights violated by the government. Clearly this cannot be.
Comment by sedonaman | June 17, 2008
BobVB
My question was to AMAI and her response will tell us if what she posted was meant to make a case for why consrvatives should back gay couples/families - which is the topic here.
Like I said, I am listening. I made no assertions, only asked questions of AMAI. But if you are going to answer for her before she gets the chance, at least you could read the questions more carefully.
My question about whether AIDS might also exist as a "mechanism" of "nature" for the purpose of population control, for example, isn't addressed very well by explaining epidemiology and how disease spreads.
Anyway, it is stuff for another bebate. Hopefully we will get the chance. I am particularly interested in your theory that (biological) evolution has a "social" agenda.
Keep an eye out for an appropriate article in the future and I will do the same.
Comment by nick adams | June 17, 2008
sedonaman, yes multiple supreme courts have said marriage is a right, and obviously so since it is part of our innate biology and beneficial to the individual and society. And if the state is going to license contracts in support of marriage it needs to have an option so that all citizens have reasonable a license. As some citizens marry people of the same gender and can only be reasonable expected to marry someone of the same gender then the government needs offer a path to license their marriages too. QED.
Nick, I don't care what your off topic comment was about - of course diseases have no purpose other than the one we give them - 'purpose' is a projected quality of life. Just as 'evolution' has not 'agenda' other than the obvious one the species that survives, well, survives. You can retrospectively identify these qualities, but identifying their benefit is 20/20 hindsight, nothing more. Be like the room full of mousetraps with ping pong balls and seeing a 'purpose' in the one that eventually landed in your hand.
Comment by BobVB | June 17, 2008
BobVB
You will have to take up the argument with AMAI. She contends gays exist to control population. I asked her if she believes disease serves the same purpose. I also asked if her position might be useful in persuading conservatives that there is good reason to get behind gays going into the upcoming election, based on her theory.
You are trying to answer for AMAI, but you are doing so without respect for the topic here.
I think AMAI may be on point, as the article here talks about the benefits of marriage as in institution supporting stability and procreation.
If gays have been singled out by nature to serve as population inhibitors, it could actually be an argument.
If I tell the judge I have been dealt a bad hand and nature selected me to "not have children," by making me gay, I can make a pretty good pitch for why the state denying me happiness through marriage/civil union to the same sex is adding insult to injury. Nature dooms me to never procreate with someone I love as a mate, and the state denies me official recognition of the mate I love.
But to make that case, I would have to have some evidence (scienfific or otherwise)to back up my claim that I exist as a gay person to help slow population growth. Just wondering if AMAI has such evidence.
Comment by nick adams | June 17, 2008
BobVB:
“…multiple supreme courts have said marriage is a right…”
Cite all the cases.
“… and obviously so since it is part of our innate biology and beneficial to the individual and society.”
This is not the case with sodomite couples. The constitution’s preamble states that the government is established to promote the general welfare. The general welfare is not promoted through the encouragement of personal and societal self-destruction.
“And if the state is going to license contracts in support of marriage it needs to have an option so that all citizens have reasonable a license.”
Looks like there’s a word missing in that sentence, but I will ask why aren’t children allowed to marry? Aren’t their rights being denied?
"The indispensable condition of any conservative or traditionalist movement, as well as of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal disorder and that we keep saying no.”
Comment by sedonaman | June 18, 2008
I would have thought the evidence is self-evident. Gays aren't able to have children qua couples. These days, they've found all kinds of ways around it if they so choose, just as heterosexual couples find ways around having children if they so choose. I was looking for a reason for why it would be a biological trait, and that is definitely a reason.
Is it the only reason? I don't think so. I also agree with Nick that being able to be attracted to one's own gender (even a little bit) has social benefits. It is part of human nature. It's part of being comfortable with one's own body. It doesn't mean we are all gay or even capable of "turning gay.:
As for gays being sacrificial lambs in the cause of birth control, no, not at all.
What of AIDS? What is the true message with that disease? I think it illustrates that certain behaviors are harmful. Not that "being gay" is harmful, but certain practices are. Sharing needles has spread AIDS/HIV among children! In poor countries where they were being inoculated against disease!! In trying to help them, but cut corners while doing so, the helpers were inadvertently causing more harm than good.
But AIDS would/should be the subject of a different article. What about other diseases? Their effect is to cause population control, but is that the reason for their existence? I doubt it. It's a disease to us, but it's life to that organism. Why does disease exist? It's just a mechanism for recycling all the living material on the planet and turning it into something else. We're food for bugs lol.
As for convincing those who believe in God's design or somebody's design, that this is so - well, I don't know how we convince them, if the arguments presented here don't work.
What I do wonder is where the idea that something being natural has to be essentially good came from. Natural isn't always good for us - diseases and viruses are natural. So are tornadoes. These things exist and we have to learn how to deal with them. Are they evil? No, they just are. Homosexuality exists, but is it evil? I don't think so. I think it has various purposes, and it's not a chosen trait. Perhaps on that basis other people can just accept that it does exist, and that people who are gay are still people.
And one more thing - the government should treat everyone the same. Problem is, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it couldn't. It just means we haven't found the right law that would.
Sorry if I missed answering any questions here. I'll be back to deal with whatever I missed later. Gotta go to work!
Comment by AMAI | June 18, 2008
AMAI
"Self evident?" That's why I asked about disease. Since AIDS strikes more male homosexuals that heterosexuals, one might think there is something "self evident" about that, too. If biology can sense and respond to a need to control population, as you contend, then biology in the form of a virus can sense the need to extiguish portions of the population. It seems fairly easy for you to rule on these questions, but based on what?
Also, I did not suggest any benefits of same-sex attractions. I think you got posts mixed up somewhere along the line.
I doubt you are going to swing public or conservative opinion on your notions of what is "self evident." Convincing a large segment of the population that biological processes are guided by the goal of population control and those processes are realized in the development of gay individuals is quite a claim.
It might be self evident to you, but I don't think anything of the kind is self evident to anyone in science, and I am not aware of anything in religion or philosophy that supports it. I also would be surprised if homosexuals supported the notion.
Comment by nick adams | June 18, 2008
sedonaman, I'm not your research assistant - if you are bright enough to be on the internet you are bright enough to use Google. Shoot 'Loving' states it is one of the basic civil rights of man.
This is not the case with sodomite couples.
Of course it is, the benefits of marriage exist regardless of the gender combination of the couple. Married couples generally happier, healthier, they give more back to society and take less from it. They get along better with their fellow citizens, they provide a better environment for the raising of children, all regardless of what gender combination they are.
Looks like there’s a word missing in that sentence, but I will ask why aren’t children allowed to marry? Aren’t their rights being denied?
No an extra 'a' before license. And they are able to marry, they just have to wait until they are 16 - regulation not proscription. We can make laws that regulate even basic rights, what we can't do is make them that effectively proscribe a citizen from ever reasonably exercising their rights. Might as well ask why they can't vote, another basic right we don't extend to children.
any conservative or traditionalist movement,
two different things that need have nothing to do with each other - and as for disorder, this is about MORE people wanting to bring order to their lives by licensing the state contract of marriage for their marriages.
As the humorist Roy Zimmerman sings:
"Protecting the institution of marriage from people who want to get married"
Comment by BobVB | June 18, 2008
Sorry Nick, we live in different universes - you are talking about Nature like you have its contact information in your address book. 'Nature' doesn't give us anything for a 'purpose' - we have survived to ask a question because we survived - trying to figure out all the reasons we did is something we do, not 'nature'.
Comment by BobVB | June 18, 2008
BobVB
Please do try to keep up. At this point I don't know what you are talking about anymore.
I made no assertions about nature, just challenging AMAI, who did make an assertion (gays were put here as a form of birth control, which also suggest other biological processes/mutations exists for population control, including diseases). I've see no evidence of either. If anything, I am trying to point out that AMAI does not have nature's contact information in an address book.
As for you and I living in different universes? Thanksfully, yes.
Comment by nick adams | June 18, 2008
BobVB:
“I'm not your research assistant…”
Nor am I yours. You are the one making the claim. It’s up to you to prove your claim, not me.
The fact you are asking me to prove what you are saying indicates that you have no proof.
"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a Leftist demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”
Comment by sedonaman | June 19, 2008
"This discussion has become a riot. BobVB and AMAI are saying that because homosexuality exists, it is normal. Well, substance abuse and addiction exist, but it would be difficult to convince people that those activities are normal. Pride, envy, greed, avarice, wrath, lust, and gluttony exist, but who agrees they are normal behavior?"
And what's wrong with Pride - that is definitely a very normal behavior. Lust? Normal. Greed? Normal. Actually, all those things ARE normal. Not to say every single person has substance abuse problems, but I think a lot of people have some kind of problem with which they deal on a daily basis and which could be classified in one of the categories you list.
Normal does not mean every person has it. It can also mean that it occurs with enough regularity to not be a rarity. Siamese twins with two heads - definitely not normal and statistically is how many out of every million births?
Look - I'm no Leftist, but I'm also not a religious person either. I do not subscribe to any religion, I don't buy what they are selling.
Oh, and Nick - I apologize if I ascribed something to you that another poster said.
As for homosexuality being a birth control mechanism, it is possible. As a species we've only just begun to acknowledge the very existence of gays, let alone study and think about the hows and whys. But think about this: over the millenia all kinds of creatures have developed, mutating to better adapt to their environments. How long have our current species be on the planet? What is it - 10,000 years or something? Remember the planet is 4.5 billion years old. Who knows what kind of changes it's gone through? We certainly are just at the threshold of discovering.
Here's my theory - as an adaptive mechanism to ensure the continued survival of a species that tends to over-produce and then consume all the food, what if our species mutated in order to prevent the population from growing too fast? It's a theory, is all. And it's not the only explanation for why homosexuality evolved. Here's another - what if it developed in order to keep people going emotionally during times of war or loss or exploration? If all the men go to war, the women will keep the home fires burning lol. If the men go exploring and become separated from their homes, they'll keep each other company, keeping their spirits up.
Again, it's just a theory. The point is - look at the world with an active mind, not with a mind that has absorbed fairytales designed to control and direct you to hate anyone who is different. The continuation of the species does depend on there being new generations of people. But it's not necessary that every one of us reproduce. There are other ways to contribute to society, equally worthy and equally valid.
Comment by AMAI | June 19, 2008
sedonaman, you are the one claiming that marriage isn't a right in direct contrast to litanies of US court decisions just a Google search away that say it is. No I'm not going to research the obvious for you - that is the request of a troll, not someone interested in ernest discussion.
Comment by BobVB | June 20, 2008