Justin:

When you say that “men and women are compatible” you’re not just talking about sexual organs and making babies, right? You are talking about their different personalities, their different capabilities, and, ultimately, their different purpose in life—and that it matches whom they’re sexually drawn to. When you say that gays’ sexual attractions are “objectively disordered,” you are saying that whom they’re sexually attracted to does not match their personalities, capabilities, and purpose. You are, however, applying the “personality” “capabilities” and “purpose” of the straight man to the gay man. That is the mistake you’re making, and the mistake most gay activists make, and the reason why these discussions go nowhere. But if gays and straights are essentially different, the same rules don’t apply. And since the same rules don’t apply, it is likely gay marriage will take a different form when gays enter into it. But if gay marriages will look one way for gays, because gays make it that way, straight marriages will continue to look, also, in the way that straights make it for themselves (good or bad, it is their own making).

The way we know that a gay man is “compatible” with another gay man, and not with a woman, is because a gay man is happier, a more productive citizen, and a better spouse (and when there are children, a better parent) when he is with another gay man. That is, ultimately, how we value individuals, gay or straight. Not by the fact that they made a baby with their sexual organs.

Arturo, why did you put “men and women are compatible” in quotes, when it's not in the post (it's not even in the 'Whitewashing' post)? Your whole comment is a nonsequiter.

Thanks for the scripture link, Justin. Here is some more of St. Paul's inspired language from Romans:

Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. ... Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

These sentiments are barbaric and evil.

Fortunately for us, we don't live in a theocracy where selective reading of the Bible (or other Holy book) creates social policy, lest we turn into Iraq or some other fundamentalist/orthodox theocracy.

It's really fine if your religious belief means gays are "objectively disordered" but that doesn't mean it should infect social policy or hijack a legal relationship like marriage.

I'm right there with you, Justin. Life's requirements are non-negotiable. We must procreate if any of our beliefs or social institutions are to survive. That's not a legal requirement; it's simply a fact of nature.

People used to understand this. There's 1969 James Bond movie called On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with the villain played by a very young Telly Savalas. As always, the villian is about to unleash a sinister plan to bring the world to its knees. He plans to distribute a virus that will render the world--gasp--sterile! Unable to procreate. That's right: Our hero steels his resolve as he risks his life to prevent a world of low birth rates.

Watching that movie a few months ago, I kept hoping that Austin Powers would appear next to Bond, and say: "What's the big deal, James? Infertility just means that we don't have to bother with rubbers and abortions."

Life requires birth. The Constitution does not say that the government must be neutral between fertility and sterility, between life and death. We may desperately need more babies soon--sooner than most people suspect. Let's not tie our own hands.

Res: "It's really fine if your religious belief means gays are "objectively disordered" but that doesn't mean it should infect social policy or hijack a legal relationship like marriage."

Should only atheists be allowed to vote? Is that what the free exercise clause means?

Matt,

Thank you for clarifying that you believe the Christian faith to be rooted in barbarism and evil. It certainly will help us to gauge your comments in the future. I do wish to suggest, however, that you might have done well to keep reading into the second chapter:

Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. ...

Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?

Guess I must be engaging in, as Res says, "selective reading."

------

Res,

I would only add, to Ben's comment, a mention of my astoundment at this phrase, as applied to marriage traditionalists and Christians:

... hijack a legal relationship like marriage...

If you go outside at midnight, tonight, be sure to wear your sunglasses. And if you venture out at noon, be sure to bring your flashlight.

"fundamentalist/orthodox"

Because these two terms are interchangeable. That's why you always hear about the Eastern Fundamentalist Church.

My point, Justin, is that if we want to have a theological discussion about homosexuality, than that's one conversation. If we want to have a discussion about whether a legal right should be extended, that's another conversation. Those conversations are, ultimately, unrelated unless we live in a theocracy.

It really comes down to whether we are going to make legal decisions based on how orthodox people intepret religious texts. While marriage is obviously a religious rite and based on religious traditions, that shouldn't really change the legal determination about whether equal protection is violated by limiting it the legal relationship to only a select group of people. No religious group will be forced to marry same-sex couples and religious people will still be able to define their rite the way they choose based on their particular interpretation of the bible or religious text.

Whether you or your religion believes homosexuality is immoral matters little in this entire discussion of the expansion of legal rights.

"We may desperately need more babies soon--sooner than most people suspect."

Can't we just import them from Muslim countries, like Europe is doing? That seems to be working out so well for them...

I used fundamentalist/orthodox to encompass the entire spectrum of religious belief that focuses on absolutist, fundamentalist interpretations of religious beliefs and texts. It includes conservative Cathollics, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals, Mormons, various Muslim sects and groups, like those that control Iran and Iraq.

Res Ipsa
It seemed clear to me that Justin was not using Paul to back up a legal argument, but to make a poit about the antological roots of knowledege.
When presented with Mikes true understanding of human sexuality and its importance (as well as Arts above)the SSM proponents tend to reveal how skewed their worl view is.
Our cultures understanding of human sexuality is very much rooted in Christian understanding. That understanding is inturn rooted in the truth of the human person.
You cant avoid such basic distinctions when advocating a change in what legal relationships a goverment subsidizes and protects with the force of law.
equal protection is but a small part of this argument.
Although SSM-proponents tend to make it their prime, all encompassing God.

Res
Dang, you did it again - Fundementalist means someone who reads scripture literally. There is no such thing as a fundementalist Catholic. It is a religion of the Word, not of the Book.

Fitz, that's why I used the word Orthodox, to describe conservative Catholics.

Orthodoxy is not a strain or branch, its how well you live in Christ.
I think Chesterton wrote: there's only one way to stand up straight, there ae many ways to fall over.

Thank you for clarifying that you believe the Christian faith to be rooted in barbarism and evil....

Umm ... no, Justin. I believe that invoking God's name to call for the murder of human beings is barbaric and evil, regardless of which faith the speaker claims to hold.

Matt,

Maybe I presumed too much. Do you know who St. Paul is?

Res,

As has been pointed out, I wasn't making a legal argument. However, I think you betray a frightening concept of law and rights — all too common in modern America — with this:

While marriage is obviously a religious rite and based on religious traditions, that shouldn't really change the legal determination about whether equal protection is violated by limiting it the legal relationship to only a select group of people. ...

Whether you or your religion believes homosexuality is immoral matters little in this entire discussion of the expansion of legal rights.

It's important that you admit that SSM would represent an expansion of legal rights — as in, not extant. Expanding rights, changing the law, is what we have a representative legislature for, so that we the people can ultimately determine how we are governed. The judiciary's role is supposed to be to judge actual cases against the law as it exists.

The frightening part is that you apparently have no concept of where the objective middle lies and what would be parallel. Nobody whom I've read has argued that it would be unconstitutional to implement same-sex marriage, much less done so on the basis of religion. What we've argued is that marriage should not be redefined for a collection of reasons and that, especially, it should not be redefined by judges. What your side argues is not only that marriage should be redefined, but that it must be, at the hands of the courts. Somebody's seeking to govern according to religious views, but it ain't the conservatives.

The conversations that you mention are intrinsically related... unless we live in a dictatorship (or judicial oligarchy).

Maybe I presumed too much. Do you know who St. Paul is?

The apostle Paul, I assume ... wasn't he the author of Romans?

As we deconstruct these issues further and further, i've just about concluded that whay same-sex couples do cannot even be called "sex". It is merely "fooling around".

When opposte sex couples "fool around", life and death issues are at stake. When same-sex couples do it, it's just fooling around.

And of course, if killing a fetus is no big deal to you, then it's ALSO just "fooling around".

Sex is a matter of life and death.

whay==what (sorry)

Sex is a matter of life or death. I don't think you need to tell gay men that sex isn't about life or death, given the AIDS epidimic which brought home quite dramatically that sex and sexuality can literlally mean life or death.

I know it would be easier to believe same-sex couples are "less than" and it would be easier to diminish their relationships, their lives, even their "sex," but maybe you want to use another metaphor.

"What we've argued is that marriage should not be redefined for a collection of reasons and that, especially, it should not be redefined by judges. "

But the legal concept of marriage has always been defined, and redefined, by judges.

Sure, it would be great for same-sex marriage to be embraced by the public and approved by the popular opinion. If we waited for public opinion, however, significant social change would never have occurred in this country. Slavery wouldn't have ended, segregation wouldn't have ended. Somtimes, society can't wait for the the least-common denominator to come aboard becfore social justice can be avenged. That's why have an independent and free judiciary.

Res Ipsa:

"Slavery wouldn't have ended, segregation wouldn't have ended."

Oh look, more spam. Why do you keep propagating this lie?

Yes, I didn't know that the judiciary initiated the Civil War. Moreover, as I understand the segregation timeline, the judiciary essentially enforced laws already in effect. And as for marriage, the fact that it is an area that the judiciary apparently found auspicious for the usurpation of power doesn't mean it should continue.

Very interesting, by the way, that the same person who complains about the diminishment of homosexual relationships, their being considered "less than," would then turn around in short order and cite "the least-common denominator" as a reason the judiciary ought to be a law-making branch. I guess disenfranchisement pales in comparison to homosexuals' needs.

Res: Sex is a matter of life or death. I don't think you need to tell gay men that sex isn't about life or death, given the AIDS epidimic which brought home quite dramatically that sex and sexuality can literlally mean life or death.

Just about death Res. Gay sex can never -- ever -- create life.

Mike S:

I should have said that "men and women complement...", not "are compatible." I think you should have known that. It's one of your side's favorite phrases.

"Moreover, as I understand the segregation timeline, the judiciary essentially enforced laws already in effect."

It sure wasn't the courts that sent the National Guard into action in Arkansas or Alabama. (Not to mention the Union army.)

"If we waited for public opinion, however, significant social change would never have occurred in this country."

You're also forgetting that at least half the country opposes a lot of what you call 'significant social change' in the first place (e.g. abortion).

"Very interesting, by the way, that the same person who complains about the diminishment of homosexual relationships, their being considered "less than," would then turn around in short order and cite "the least-common denominator" as a reason the judiciary ought to be a law-making branch."

Least-common denominator referred to public opinion needing to wait until the most entrenched and bigoted decide to move forward or find their opinions appropriately sidelined.

"You're also forgetting that at least half the country opposes a lot of what you call 'significant social change' in the first place (e.g. abortion)."

At least half of the country opposed interracial marriages when they were outlawed, hald of the coutnry opposed desegregated schools when they were mandated, and most polling shows the country is actually pretty slip on abortion.

"Just about death Res. Gay sex can never -- ever -- create life."

This is true, but how often does heterosexual sex result in death? Your metaphor is a complete mystery.

"...hald of the coutnry opposed desegregated schools when they were mandated, and most polling shows the country is actually pretty slip on abortion."

I don't know what polling you are talking about - roughly half the population thinks it should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother's life, and larger majorities favor various restrictions on it.

And how well did the mandated desegregation policies and forced busing work out? It caused a great deal of anguish and uproar, increased racial tensions, and resulted in, what? Schools are as segregated now as they were in the 1960's. People's attitudes about race have changed, but not because some judges declared that schools must be desegregated.

In any case, the ends don't justify the means. Even if a judge has a morally upright motivation for legislating from the bench, doesn't give him the right to do so. He has a particular duty and responsibility under our system of government, and forcing social changes on a reluctant populace isn't one of them.

He has a particular duty and responsibility under our system of government, and forcing social changes on a reluctant populace isn't one of them.

Mike, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Connecticut's decision to enact civil unions? Which are in fact marriages by another name, not eligible for relatives (unlike VT) and only available to same-sex couples. And were not forced upon the population by the judiciary. And have support of at least half the population of CT.

And while Massachusetts had gay marriage "forced" on them--by judges nominated primarilly by Republicans--gay marriage has broad support in the state, so much so that the issue probably won't be brought up in the legislature since anti-gay marriage legislators have consistently lost in elections.

Great essay by Bradley Watson on the meaning of the word 'marriage', and it's deconstruction in the SSM arena. (via PowerLine)

In the debate over same-sex "marriage," we are seeing a partial and greatly dumbed-down replay of the medieval debate between realists and nominalists. According to the realists, we possess minds capable of transcending individual phenomena and seeing the objective truth or essences that link phenomena. Thus we know that the phrase "man is a rational animal" is tautological. To this version of the Christian mind, the phenomenal world is a real reflection of God's creation and mind, and the permanent connections we perceive among the things that compose it are not illusions.

The nominalists, by contrast, emphasized that words cannot express things-in-themselves, for these are unknown and unknowable to us. We intuit only individually existing things, and can perceive, through reason, no ineluctable relationships among them. Words cannot signify universals, only particulars, and to the extent they do point to universals, they are but sound and fury, signifying nothing. For the nominalists, to claim we can know things in themselves, or a universal natural order, is to be impious and full of hubris—it is a claim to read the mind, and therefore constrain the actions, of God.

For the medieval nominalists, at least, revelation filled the gap that reason could no longer bridge. By faith and faith alone we might be aware of the order that the noun "marriage" signifies, being the order presently established (but changeable) through the free will of God. But in the absence of a guiding revelation, God's will itself disappears, and we are left only with the changeable. For the modern-day nominalists, lacking the overwhelming faith of the medieval mind, we are not permitted the concept of marriage as it has ever been. And the best way to express and enforce this aversion to any knowledge of or faith in essence, as Orwell foresaw, is through control of language.

"Marriage" across all religions and cultures has had a similar, though not identical, meaning. It is a rite of passage signifying and reminding us of the divine or natural order's purposes with respect to procreation. (Love or "commitment" are, at best, incidental to this rite.) As Blackstone says, the relationship between husband and wife is founded in the natural desire to propagate the species—which is marriage's "principal end and design." "The most universal relation in nature"—that between parent and child—proceeds directly from marriage. The "natural obligation" of the father to provide for his children is in turn cemented by the marriage tie. The law has the right, nay duty, to recognize "civil disabilities," quite apart from ecclesiastical ones, that render a union, in Blackstone's words, meretricious rather than matrimonial.

Michael: How do you feel about Connecticut's decision to enact civil unions... which are in fact marriages by another name, not eligible for relatives (unlike VT) and only available to same-sex couples.

Is this really true? Can you provide me a link? If that is truly the case (same-sex couples only, no relatives), then i can almost even support it myself. The only thing missing is some sort of "proof" that the parties are indeed gay, or some sort of "consummation" requirement. But very close to a perfect solution -- especially considering there were no judges subverting the normal process of democracy.

For homosexuals, on the other hand, not only is that denial allowed, but it is required if they are to formulate "what sexuality means" in a way that doesn't mire their sex lives in the secondary. Even conservative gays (among whom Michael counts himself) must take a radical view of sex or else admit something in which there is neither sin nor reason for shame: that their sexual attractions are, in the Catholic phrasing, "objectively disordered."

But isn't infertility just as "objectively disordered"? And doesn't marriage help to bring order back to a disordered state? There is no sin or shame in sex, inside the marriage vows. Gays are trying to emulate the morals and values that a heterosexual society has prescribed for us. And we are chastized for it.

That denial of procreation is of course a requirement; but it is also the requirement of the infertile couple who cannot conceive. They are forced into an understanding of their sexuality outside of procreation and yet are not required to remain chaste and often adopt. They are emulating a procreative marriage but their bond is unitive, spiritual and often with the intentions of raising a family, if they are blessed through adoption. And yet, the homosexual is being forced by society to either remain chaste or be chastized for promiscuity, since society does nothing to encourage gays to join their lives (and in fact punishes us monetarily). Sex plays a role outside of procreation and that role is emotionally and psychologically important. The homosexual must deal with his sexuality every day because society makes him accutely aware of it all the time.

In one swoop, the meaning of sex has not only engulfed the significance of gender, but also installed the individual as the definer of roles in a relativist process of blending what one wishes to do and be with a self-assessment of what one is "good" at doing and being.

That wasn't what I meant. But whenever we talk about androgyny in marriage I have a really hard time figuring out what male/female roles I'm supposed to focus on as being immutable. If I say that a woman can teach her son how to throw a football, I'm accused of being too superficial. But every other example I can think of is sexist. A little boy doesn't need to grow up thinking that if he likes to bake he's a fag. But he doesn't need a father to teach him how to treat women properly.

And of course one needs more than an inner dialogue. What I meant was that homosexuals are more introspective of their sexuality on a regular basis. I didn't come to understand myself without outside help, and that includes friends, family, the clergy, the scriptures, psychiatrists, etc.

Is this really true? Can you provide me a link?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0354.htm

Straight from the CT government website. It also protects people who refuse to perform civil unions. Scroll down to eligibility requirements to see that it's only for non-related same-sex couples.

I'm from Connecticut. And I'm very proud of my state.

Charles Krauthammer on judges.

It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that Roe v. Wade "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue." Whenever such an obvious sociological truth is pointed out, proponents of judicial imperialism immediately resort to their trump card: Brown v. Board of Education and the courts' role in ending Jim Crow.

But Brown was different. The race cases were cases of a disenfranchised citizenry. The representative branches of government were legitimately superseded because they were not representative. Millions of blacks could not vote. Millions of blacks could not participate in civic life. The courts had to act to end this aberration and injustice, and, to their glory, they did.

And they have lived off that glory ever since. The prestige the courts inherited from Brown fueled their arrogant appropriation of legislative power in areas radically different and suffering no disenfranchisement -- abortion, gay rights, religion in the public square. For decades they have been creating law, citing emanations from penumbras of the Constitution visible only to their holinesses.

From the Washington Post:

Ann Stanback, president of the Connecticut chapter of the gay rights advocacy group Love Makes a Family, initially argued that the bill would enshrine a lesser status for gay couples into law and leave legislators satisfied that a compromise had been reached.

But as the bill gained momentum, she said, she had changed her view because lawmakers made clear that granting civil unions would not halt the push toward to same-sex marriage.

"We feared it would not be a steppingstone [to same-sex marriage] but a dead end in the marriage debate," said Stanback, whose Hartford office is adorned with the sort of detailed, statewide ward and congressional district maps one might find at the headquarters of a political campaign.

"But because of our position, the legislators understand that this won't be the end of the discussion."

On that point, opponents of the measure, such as the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which handles political affairs for the church and is organizing a large rally here in the state capital this month, agree.

"If any Connecticut legislator thinks this is going to stop the issue, it won't. They will move forward to same-sex marriage with the official title," said the conference's legislative director, David W. Reynolds.

I agree that this situation is better than the Mass. situation, with the following caveat from the article:

"Not a single senator ran on this when they were being elected," Brown added. "Now they are the ones championing same-sex marriage. The people of this state will hold them responsible."

It still doesn't appear that the people of the state have been adequately consulted on this (the article says polls show even divisions on SSM, and majority support for civil unions), but in this case they have the opportunity to either push for some kind of referendum, or vote against the legislators who passed the bill. So the process followed is clearly preferable. However, as the extended quote above indicates, it is not likely to be a stable situation. This is the general problem I have with same-sex civil unions that are meant to mimic marriage: they aren't stable. Either SSM will be implemented (in fairly short order), or heterosexuals will demand access to civil unions, either of which kills the legal institution of marriage. Note that Ms. Stanback will not be satisfied until same-sex couples are called 'married' - as the essay by Watson says, she wants to change the definition of the word.

While I can imagine some kinds of civil unions being constructed that would be more stable, it doesn't appear that this case falls into that model.

Yes, infertility is "objectively disordered". I doubt many infertile people would deny that. the difference between them, and modern gays is that they KNOW that they are broken, and seek a cure.

Michael,

"But isn't infertility just as "objectively disordered"?"

Justin said, "their sexual attractions are...'objectively disordered'". See the difference between attractions and infertility?

"That denial of procreation is of course a requirement; but it is also the requirement of the infertile couple who cannot conceive. They are forced into an understanding of their sexuality outside of procreation and yet are not required to remain chaste and often adopt."

No, their sexual relationship is inherently procreative in nature - the plumbing just doesn't work properly. A same-sex sexual relationship is inherently not procreative. No matter how many ways you try to get around this basic difference in biology, you cannot do it.

"But whenever we talk about androgyny in marriage I have a really hard time figuring out what male/female roles I'm supposed to focus on as being immutable."

Male=dad, female=mom.

"But he doesn't need a father to teach him how to treat women properly."

Sure, he doesn't. That's why gang members are so respectful and courteous towards women.

Res Ipsa: “My point, Justin, is that if we want to have a theological discussion about homosexuality, than that's one conversation. If we want to have a discussion about whether a legal right should be extended, that's another conversation. Those conversations are, ultimately, unrelated unless we live in a theocracy.”

Res, what if we live in a democracy? Is there any distinction in your mind between theocracy and allowing religious believers to vote?

Religious people get to vote, too, Res. And they can base their votes on anything they like, including—gasp!—the Bible. (No! Say it isn’t so! Theocracy looms! Save us!)

I’m really starting to wonder about you, Res. In your perfect world, do religious believers have any voice in government whatsoever? Any political rights? For you, does 'freedom of religion' mean the freedom to shut up and stay away from the ballot box?

One more point about the Connecticut situation - how are other states supposed to deal with that? It's theoretically possible to have varying types of civil union laws in different states, with states not having to honor the laws in other states, but that doesn't seem very likely to me.

Res,

"I used fundamentalist/orthodox to encompass the entire spectrum of religious belief that focuses on absolutist, fundamentalist interpretations of religious beliefs and texts. It includes conservative Cathollics, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals, Mormons, various Muslim sects and groups, like those that control Iran and Iraq."

You are including wildly different groups in your "entire spectrum of religious belief", as Fitz tried to point out. The biggest laugher is the equation of those people currently ruling Iraq and Iran, but we'll let that pass. "Conservative Catholics" don't focus on "absolutist, fundamentalist interpretations". Neither do many of the other groups you referred to. (I'm a member of a Southern Baptist church, for example. There are Southern Baptists who are fundamentalists, but not all SB's are fundies.) You're just lumping everyone together who comes to a different conclusion than you do, if they base their conclusion in part on religious beliefs or text. That's hardly a fair intellectual argument.

On fundamentalism vs. orthodoxy, it's amazing how the people who hate religion the most seem to think that they know the most about it. Res, maybe you should leave theology to the believers. Maybe you should find out what they think, rather than telling them what they think.

Ben,

I am, in fact, a believer who has studied theology and went as far as applying to the seminary. I am a "go every Sunday" Protestant who is active in my church's social justice programs and having attended my church's national assembly and meetings.

I just don't think we can "leave the theology" to fundamentalists, the orhodox, and those who "proof text" religious doctrine and texts. I also believe in a sharp division between church and the state.

Male=dad, female=mom.

Mike, you've just restated a definition. A father is a male parent, a mother is a female parent. What makes them substantially different as to not raise a child properly?

"But he doesn't need a father to teach him how to treat women properly."

Sure, he doesn't. That's why gang members are so respectful and courteous towards women.

You are erroneously equating a single-parent household with a double-parent same-sex household. At this stage in the game, that's an amateurish argument. The child of gay parents can learn respect for people by how they treat each other and the other members of their family (granparents, parents, siblings) and other friends. Trying to draw comparisons between a lesbian household and inner-city single motherhood is simply not valid.

As for Connecticut:
It still doesn't appear that the people of the state have been adequately consulted on this (the article says polls show even divisions on SSM, and majority support for civil unions), but in this case they have the opportunity to either push for some kind of referendum, or vote against the legislators who passed the bill.

The bill was presented as a marriage bill. It got downgraded in the senate to civil unions. Why? Because the people of Connecticut consistently poll as being in favor of civil unions but not SSM, as you quoted. And then it passed only with the added amendment that marriage be clarified as defined as a union between one man and one woman. Look, we are a representative democracy. We have to trust that our representatives are making the proper decisions. You have absolutely no idea what steps each representative took to making sure he or she were representing their constituates properly, so I have no idea how you can say (given the above facts) that the people haven't been adequately consulted. If the above facts were the same (ie a majority polled supporting civil unions) and they voted it down, would you still complain that the people hadn't been properly consulted?

One more point about the Connecticut situation - how are other states supposed to deal with that?

That is up to the states to decide. Marriage laws between cousins is different in differing states and that has never caused a federal crisis. The CT bill sets up rules for what civil unions would be accepted, and they have decided that civil unions performed in another state or foreign country would be valid if the couple would have fit the criteria for the CT civil union when they were unionized. Other states can do as they see fit. New York has decided to recognize other same-sex marriages. They have the right to do that.

Very impressive, Res. I never would have guessed.

Given this study of theology and regular church attendance, do you allow yourself to vote? It seems that with so much interest in religion, you're in grave danger of accidentally allowing your religious views to infect (your verb) your politics. Given your participation in your church's social justice programs, perhaps the damage is already done.

Quick! We must find a way to cure your politics of any trace of religion, because that's apparently what church-state separation means in your world.

Or maybe it means that religion can influence politics, as long as it's a good religion like yours. Is it only the bad religions--the fundamentalists, in your lexicon--who need to stay away from government to avoid infecting it?

And the list of bad religions is breathtaking in scope: "It includes conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists and other Evangelicals, Mormons, various Muslim sects and groups, like those that control Iran and Iraq."

How about: When the bad religions have a voice in government, it's theocracy. But when the courts mandate what good people like you want, then it's democracy. Is that how it works?

I’m really not trying to put word in your mouth here, Res. But you’re throwing out some pretty wild statements. So far, you’ve said that applying a Holy Book to social policy creates theocracy. Also, religious belief (or at least certain religious beliefs) must not be allowed to “infect” social policy. These evil religions include conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and Southern Baptists, which are apparently not worth distinguishing from the government of Iran.

So what I’m hearing is: Damn those Jews, Papists, and rednecks trying to corrupt our laws! We can’t stop them from voting, but thank Goddess that our friends on the court can ensure that those votes are worthless on the important stuff.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. As they say in the Senate, perhaps the gentleman would like to revise and extend his remarks.

There is a rather long post over at "Alas a Blog"
concerning SSM.
At the end of this post, there is a reduction of Justin Katz arguments to - "if you get more SSM you will get more incest".
This is really unfair and slanted,
Justins work is some of the best on the web.
So heads up.
"Alas A Blog"

Let me guess, Res. You're one of those revisionist Episcopalians who is currently tearing the worldwide anglican communion apart, because "you just know better than everyone else". Is that correct?

Not an Episcopalian, either as a "revisionist" or one who is so out of step with contemporary culture that I have to turn to Africa for guidance and acceptance of my beliefs.

Does my faith impact my citizenship and voting? Well, yes and no. Yes, my concern about social justice influences my voting behavior. OTOH, I am opposed to abortion based on my faith but also don't believe my moral decisions should interefere with a legal right for others to have an abortion.

Marriage, however, is separate from abortion and more dangerous religious area. Marriage is both a religious rite and legal right. Given that we allow religious people to perform the legal sanctification of marriage, there is an inherent conflict. I think it is essential not to allow the religious rite to be confused with the legal right.

While my church may not bless same-sex relationships, it would be improper for them to participate in opposing same-sex marriages since it would be an intrusion of theology and faith into a legal and political question.

"You have absolutely no idea what steps each representative took to making sure he or she were representing their constituates properly, so I have no idea how you can say (given the above facts) that the people haven't been adequately consulted. If the above facts were the same (ie a majority polled supporting civil unions) and they voted it down, would you still complain that the people hadn't been properly consulted?"

Sure, I don't know. I don't know the details of how the bill came about, what kind of publicity it got, or what politicians said about it. I was responding to the quote in the article that the legislators hadn't campaigned on it. Maybe the quote is inaccurate. It may very well be that the majority of the citizens of Connecticut want civil unions, but want to reserve the name (apparently, only the name) of marriage for heterosexual unions, and that the representatives are carrying out the wishes of this majority. In that case, I think the majority is misguided, but support the results on procedural grounds.

Michael said,

"But whenever we talk about androgyny in marriage I have a really hard time figuring out what male/female roles I'm supposed to focus on as being immutable."

To which I replied,
Male=dad, female=mom.

Michael:

Mike, you've just restated a definition. A father is a male parent, a mother is a female parent. What makes them substantially different as to not raise a child properly?

Michael:

But he doesn't need a father to teach him how to treat women properly.

Mike S.: Sure, he doesn't. That's why gang members are so respectful and courteous towards women.

Michael:

You are erroneously equating a single-parent household with a double-parent same-sex household. At this stage in the game, that's an amateurish argument. The child of gay parents can learn respect for people by how they treat each other and the other members of their family (granparents, parents, siblings) and other friends. Trying to draw comparisons between a lesbian household and inner-city single motherhood is simply not valid.

Each child has a biological mother and father. And children are wired to develop close relationships with their mother and father. But you want to turn this into "children are wired to develop close relationships with two arbitrary adults (who love the child)." That's not how it works. Note how you slipped in the extended family. First of all, extended families are based on biological ties, not on romantic ones. Second, by including the extended family you can produce a wider variety of inter-relationships. But the fact is that children imitate, and are most strongly influenced by, their parents. And the lesbian partner of a boy's mother cannot replace his father. You are focused on external behaviors: i.e., she can play catch with him, or teach him how to tie his tie. But she can't be his father. She can only imitate his father. Claiming there's no difference between the real thing and the imitation is, as Justin said, denying what can be perceived in what God has made.

You object when others deny the reality of evolution, but you are denying the reality of that which evolution has produced.

I actually agree with the content of much of Justin’s post – except that I think it should fall under the category of ‘Religion’ rather than the category of “Marriage & Family’.

Ben said: Quick! We must find a way to cure your politics of any trace of religion, because that's apparently what church-state separation means in your world.
------ I agree that the trend towards eliminating any trace of religion in public policy (or even public places) is disturbing and not an appropriate use of the separation of church and state clause. But it is also unfair to say that simply since evangelical/fundamentalism says homosexuality is immoral, then that is reason enough for the law to discourage or criminalize it. Religious belief should be allowed to be a factor in public policy. In fact, I emailed Justin a link about an overturned jury punishment in Colorado because some of the jurors used the Bible in their reasoning. The persecution of religious faith in this country is real and scary. Bottom line is that religious belief should be a part of the process. But not a required part. Yet, some of the people who comment here seem to believe that any logic that is not based on strict reading of scripture should not be allowed to be considered in public policy decisions. That is what a theocracy is. In other words, when Ben wrote “When the bad religions have a voice in government, its theocracy. But when the courts mandate what good people like you want, then it's democracy. Is that how it works?” – No, that’s not how it works. The issue is whether the government should be in the business of deciding what the good and bad religions are? My opinion is that they should not.

Mike S. :Each child has a biological mother and father. And children are wired to develop close relationships with their mother and father. But you want to turn this into "children are wired to develop close relationships with two arbitrary adults (who love the child)." That's not how it works.”
------- I agree. But I don’t think anyone is saying that non-biological parents have no different relationships to their dependants as biological ones do with their offspring. (or if they are, I'd disagree) It is different. But should law codify that difference ? How about a different name for non-biological parents ? Mom and dad should be reserved for biological parents, wouldn’t you say ? Or maybe the state should require that biological parents live with and take care of their kids. What a concept. You would never use what you wrote above to argue against adoption by opposite sex couples. It only applies to same sex couples with children. Or maybe you feel that the benefit of that 'relationship' (gay parent-biological child) is outweighed by the damage to society of legitimizing homosexuality. I don't agree but that is a fair argument. What is not fair is the use of the 'biological' argument against legitimizing of same sex couples. Gays can be biologically linked to children – gay men can be fathers and gay women can be mothers. But those biological links are less important to you.

Mark Miller: "some of the people who comment here seem to believe that any logic that is not based on strict reading of scripture should not be allowed to be considered in public policy decisions. That is what a theocracy is."

Who? Who said it? Who implied it? Show me a quote. Any quote.

I'm sure that some people have said that they base their views on scripture. Maybe one or two have said something that could be construed as saying that they personally weren't interested in any non-Biblical arguments. But "should not be allowed to be considered in public policy decisions"? Maybe you were exaggerating there a bit.

But isn't infertility just as "objectively disordered"? And doesn't marriage help to bring order back to a disordered state? There is no sin or shame in sex, inside the marriage vows.

Michael, can you think of a single infertile married couple that doesn't feel "disordered"? That doesn't feel as if they are missing out on something? Among the problems of the comparison between gays and infertile straight couples is that the former insist on being seen as in no way missing out on anything important. Another of the problems is that very, very few heterosexual couples prove to be sterile, and they can only know as much once they've made the decision to have children, visited a few doctors, and had lots and lots of sex. Since you note that sex is only not sinful within marriage, hopefully you'll see the multiple ways in which it would be ludicrous to expect them to go through the just-mentioned steps before marriage, so as to ensure that their marriage is procreative.

As for why children need a mother and a father, I have to admit that I think your examples are superficial. Men and women are different in ways that are often difficult to articulate. As Dennis Prager says, it takes a Master's degree not to see that.

Ben,

Re-reading my post and your response I see where my comment that you referred to is, let's say, exxagerated.

My point is that while the current trend towards the elimination of any religious view point from public is wrong, that the gist of Justin's original post seemed to (and not just to me) use a theological argument as a discussion ender for what public policy should be. And for him and many others, it is just that. But for others, it is not.

But your point is well taken, and I'll admit that the side that uses the theological argument is under more attack.

I would argue that most homosexuals who try to bury their sexuality actually become more objectively disordered and develop unstable personalities and pathological behaviors. Their attempts to block out their sexual urges often become so all-encompassing that there is no time left for any spiritual or psychological growth or development and they may become mere shells of existence angry at the world and angry at themselves.

I am not speaking of people here who might be sexually confused, particularly in youth. I referring only to those whose homosexual orientation is fixed by almost any standard of measurement.

Well, hello, Dr. Freud! Good to see you...

Mike S:

Don't dismiss what Joel has said. He is exactly right.

Your response to Joel shows that when you guys through phrases like "objectively disordered" around, you are merely trying to insult, not to understand, or even to explain what you you think you understand.

Well, it's difficult to know how to respond to a comment like Joel's when it lacks a shred of evidence or qualification. Who are these people? How many are there? How do we differentiate between "fixed" and "confused"? And how do we quantify those in Joel's suggested group who've proceeded to live perfectly happy, well-adjusted lives?

Justin,

On a day that I have more time, I could provide qualifying statements to what I wrote based on research and policy statements from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Social Workers and the American Psychiatric Association. However, none of that would make a difference to you anyway because in your mind gays and lesbians are disordered simply because your church says they are.

How do we know the difference between fixed and confused? Are you saying that you are uncertain as to whether or not you are straight? Certainly I would hope that you could tell the difference between youthful experimentation and years-long attraction to the same gender.

I read a story in the Advocate last week. About a young man, and several of his peers who had been demeaned and confused and eventually excommunicated by the Mormon church. He's part of a support group for gay mormons now. Toward the end of the story, we find out -- matter of factly -- that after coming to terms with his ordeal, the young man eventually convinced his mother to become a lesbian.

He turned his own mother gay, and the Advocate doesn't find that the least but suprising, or even worthy of further comment.

So much for "the difference between youthful experimentation and years-long attraction to the same gender" i guess.

Marty,

You didn't reference the Advocate article in context. The mother had in fact gone through therapy attempting to undo her homosexual orientation. The therapy simply made the woman unhappy. The son didn't talk his mother into being lesbian but into accepting her orientation.

It is my understanding that the church's meaning of objectively disordered is in the context of objectively meaning - perceptible to persons other than the affected individual. In other words, it is the objective of the disordered person to in fact be disordered in as much as they cannot admit or accept that they are disordered. That's the thing about being objectively disordered; it's so much easier to remain that way and convince others they are that way than to conform to acceptable standards. It's so much easier to believe you don't need to change, the rest of the world needs to change to be in line with you.

Joel, the article never mentioned any of that. What do you know that i don't?

Anyway, what are we left with -- a gay son, a gay mom, and no mention whatsoever of any father. From the little information we have, that family sounds "objectively disordered" to me. Indeed the son seems lucky to be alive at all, if his mother was _always_ a lesbian...

Marty,

The article did indeed mention therapy, so maybe you read a different article or a shortened version.

I'll doublecheck it at the library on monday. Email me if you have a link.

Maybe the family lived on one of the sham marriages your encourage, with a lesbian marrying a straight man in order to gain social acceptance. These are the kinds of families you seem to encourage. It's nice you can finally see the consequences of forcing people into sham marriages if they want to have rights and social acceptance. It creates, in your words, "objectively disordered" families.

Congratulations. These families are the products of faith-driven homophobia and intolerance.

Yeah, Res, and I'm sure the Advocate picked that family at random.

Res Ipsa, why would you automatically assume that a so-called mixed-orientation marriage was a "sham" even where a wife was not lesbian at the outset? What makes her marriage a sham, in your view? What is a sham, by your light of reason?

In this case, as so far revealed in this discussion thusfar, a mother and son had spoken of their sexuality without mention of the father. As in many discussions of so-called mixed-orientation marriages, an airbrush is silently applied to that part of the family photo that would reveal the presence of the person who has not identified himself or herself as homosexual. It is an incomplete picture.

There really isn't that much known about this sort of marriage -- except the scattering that is known about those which have already dissolved -- so it would be an over-reach to claim that all such marriages were, or are, dishonest or masquerades.

I think it would be very likely that the husbands and wives felt genuine love for one another. And that feeling of love is supposed to be the essence of SSM but you wouldn't claim that all SSM arrangements are presumptively just shams. Right? Including those that dissolve due to a lack of sexual interest?

If you say that Justin enocourages so-called mixed-orientation marriages (which I don't recall his having said), then, do you make the counter assertion that such arrangements be discouraged? On what basis would you make such a blanket policy in your SSM argument?

I don't believe gay people should be forced to enter sham marriages in order to get the benefits and rights of marriages. In only rare situations are these marriages healthy or productive for the individuals involved.

Research shows that women are more likely to marry men and then come to grips with the repressed sexual orientation, like the mother in this situation. They marry believing that is what is expected of them and because they reatlize it is the only way to obtain the protection of marriage. As the marriage moves forward, they realize they have always been lesbians but have been repressing those feelings. The consequences for all involved can be pretty dramatic.

Res Ipsa, that's an interesting (if preictable) set of generalizations on your part.

Essentially you claim that a marriage in which one spouse came out as gay or lesbian would have been a sham all along.

You seem to rule out the possibility that even that arrangement might succeed as a bonafide marriage.

Perhaps you'd say that such a marriage would *become* a sham if the couple choses not to bust-up their family?

I'd be interested in reading the studies. Can you provide a URL or a reference for the research that has convinced you of your opinion? Thanks.

Except for health reasons and short periods of mutually agreed abstinence, the Bible requires sexual relations for a marriage to be valid and not a sham.

Can somebody give me some examples of people whose sexual attractions and/or behavior are objectively disordered, besides homosexuals? For those who don't think homosexual attraction/behavior is objectively disordered, do you think such a situation exists? If so, what criteria do you use to distinguish ordered vs. disordered behavior?

I have always heard that if you lie with enough conviction even somebody who knows the truth will believe you. For a little while at least. But that doesn't really apply in this situation Joel. If you insist on making stuff up about the Bible without relying on body language to sound convincing, you might want to wait until the audience you are trying to convince doesn't know the Bible better than you.

Just to note a curious consequence of the following from Res:

I don't believe gay people should be forced to enter sham marriages in order to get the benefits and rights of marriages.

It appears that you're constructing the "benefits and rights of marriage" as something given to an individual upon marriage, not as an outgrowth of the pairing.

Not SamAmI,

My authority is I Corinthians 7:1-5, which calls for the fulfillment of marital duty and not to deprive each other "except by mutual consent and for a time." A marriage without sex is a sham unless the parties are physically unable to perform.

"It appears that you're constructing the "benefits and rights of marriage" as something given to an individual upon marriage, not as an outgrowth of the pairing."

It is both, actually. The second one gets married, they are bathed in a bundle of significant rights, even if they marry a complete stranger and they never intend to have a child.

>> Joel Thomas: "the Bible requires sexual relations for a marriage to be valid and not a sham [...] A marriage without sex is a sham unless the parties are physically unable to perform.'

Joel, from a Catholic perspective, it appears you've misconstrued Scripture and have misapplied human reasoning on sexuality and conjugal relations, as Not SamIAm and others might soon explain.

Also, you've shifted from the assertion of Res Ipsa to whom I posed my comment and questions. Res Ipsa referred to research on mixed-orientation marriages and I asked for references and/or URL addresses or other sources that helped to form his (or her) opinion.

>> Mike S: "Can somebody give me some examples of people whose sexual attractions and/or behavior are objectively disordered, besides homosexuals?"

Our culture exhibits the symptoms of disordered sexuality which is selfish rather than selfless -- i.e. giving of one's self to the other.

In a nutshell: the objectification of sexuality, fertility, and such, as things possessed rather than as aspects of the self; the separation of the person from his or her body.

>> Mike S: "For those who don't think homosexual attraction/behavior is objectively disordered, do you think such a situation exists? If so, what criteria do you use to distinguish ordered vs. disordered behavior?"

Two good questions that are very much on-topic given Justin's original post at the top of this thread. Perhaps terms will be defined, as well?

Michael, can you think of a single infertile married couple that doesn't feel "disordered"? That doesn't feel as if they are missing out on something? Among the problems of the comparison between gays and infertile straight couples is that the former insist on being seen as in no way missing out on anything important.

But think about this from a psychological standpoint; of course an infertile couple feels disordered. Many of those couples have a very hard time dealing with their infertility, their lack of wholeness. To think that gays do not go through the same psychological issues is naive. The difference between infertile couples and gays is that, in the case of the former, society invokes compassion towards them, all the while encouraging them (sometimes through measures that the Catholic Church opposes) to find a way to be as whole as possible. They are encouraged to marry; they are encouraged to seek adoption; they are encouraged to go about their lives as close to fertile as possible. They are not being barred from society because of something they cannot help. Infertile couples, while they may admit that they are "incomplete", would not be so forthcoming with that admission if it meant that society would use that to forbid them access to important institutions such as marriage. Sure there's something different, something "wrong" with them; but we don't deny them full citizenship. We treat them equally not because they are equal in every way but because we believe in the equality of humanity. Homosexuals do not get that consideration.

Another of the problems is that very, very few heterosexual couples prove to be sterile, and they can only know as much once they've made the decision to have children, visited a few doctors, and had lots and lots of sex. Since you note that sex is only not sinful within marriage, hopefully you'll see the multiple ways in which it would be ludicrous to expect them to go through the just-mentioned steps before marriage, so as to ensure that their marriage is procreative.

This is incorrect. About one in ten couples show some degree of infertility. That's more than the number of homosexual couples in the country.

And while I do see that it is ludicrous to make heterosexual couples prove their infertility, there are more than a handful of women that have had hysterectomies early in life due to cysts or cancer or the like. It is pretty easy to prove that these women are infertile. And yet we let them marry just the same, not because they aren't "incomplete", but because marriage serves an important function outside of securing the continuation of the race. And we treat her the same as every citizen because we value her as a human being. (Cue Marty: Gays are being treated the same! They can marry someone of the opposite sex!)

Sure, homosexuals are "broken" in some way; but rather than forcing them to seek a "cure" for a condition that does not devalue their humanity (like infertility does not devalue humanity), we should encourage them into family raising monogamy. We don't force infertile couples into getting IVF, and those who choose against it we applaud for adopting. I think we, as a society, should be affording gay couples the same courtesy and dignity.

Oh, that's right, I forgot that your version of the Bible provides subtitles Joel; and chapter 7's first subtitle is "How to recognize sham marriages", closely followed by the "It's okay for lesbians to leave their male spouses and gays to leave their female spouses because their spouses are unbelievers or their marriage is a sham" subtitle. But we mustn't forget the Chapter 6 subtitles "Lesbians are incapable of having relations with their male/Gays are incapable of having relations with their female spouses" and "ignore the parts of the Bible that hint Gay and Lesbian behavior might be immoral".

Give up Joel, you can't compete on the religious knowledge playing field. Making it up as you go along doesn't cut the mustard.

Michael:

"To think that gays do not go through the same psychological issues is naive. The difference between infertile couples and gays is that, in the case of the former, society invokes compassion towards them,"

This is a diversion of context. The reason society displays compassion toward one and not the other is that with Gays and Lesbians they are infertile by choice. If you don't want to be infertile as half a married couple, find somebody to marry that you can be reasonably certain of being fertile with. In other words, get a wife!

Also, a woman who has had a hysterectomy is not denied the right to marry simply out of a sense of fairness. Although marriage is most certainly "about" procreation/family, it would be wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they are unable to procreate.

Gays CAN procreate however, and are allowed to marry. Under the same rules as everyone else, bey they man woman white black gay straight fertile or infertile.

Thanks for the cue, mike.

NotSamAmI,

It appears that you haven't studied anything in the Bible that relates to love, charity, grace or compassion or you wouldn't have written that shitty little personal response to me. Guess that's pretty easy to pull off when you are a totally anonymous commenter.

I've never claimed that same gender attracted people are incapable of sexual relations with the opposite gender.

One of the main claims that fundamentalists have made against same sex relationships is that homosexuals can't procreate. (When I was younger the claim against homosexuality was that it was unnatural. However, when scientists demonstrated that homosexuality exists in nature, that argument was pretty much abandoned.)Then a fundamentalist will turn around and claim that sexual relations (let alone fertility) aren't essential to a heterosexual relationship. That simply doesn't follow.

First the bad news:

I did indeed misread the Advocate article about the gay mormon and his mother. Apparently she IS a lesbian, and the son was trying to change her into a hetero while he was undergoing reparative therapy himself. I had read it backwards (but will gladly place 49% of the blame on the author of the article).

The good news is, crow tastes just like chicken. Please disregard my previous statement concerning that article.

Michael,

"This is incorrect. About one in ten couples show some degree of infertility."

Care to provide any support for this claim? I suspect the "some degree" is a dodge to make the number larger - it is vague, and could encompass all sorts of problems. I've heard many stories of people who were distressed because they thought they couldn't get pregnant, after many doctor visits, etc. Right after they decided they were fertile, or after they adopted, they got pregnant! These could count in your "some degree" of infertility, but ultimately they are in the fertile category.

"It is pretty easy to prove that these women are infertile."

No it's not "pretty easy". How would a justice of the peace, or other authority granting a marriage license, go about determining whether any given woman applying for a license had had a hysterectomy?

Marty,

Unfortunately I misread part of the Advocate article, too, even though I had read it more recently than you had. I confused which one had been in therapy.

Michael:

There is nothing "broken" about homosexuality. Homosexuality exists for a reason, and that is to mitigate the destructive nature of the heterosexual male (to put it in modern terms, to teach the straight guy some manners). So as such, homosexuals are not "broken." And just like a fertile woman cannot be forced to bear children, homosexuals, also, should not be kept from seeking happiness for themselves, through marriage and parenting.

"Sure, homosexuals are "broken" in some way; but rather than forcing them to seek a "cure" for a condition that does not devalue their humanity (like infertility does not devalue humanity), we should encourage them into family raising monogamy."

You are, yet again, conflating issues of individual human dignity with public recognition of particular relationships. All human beings are broken in one way or another - the question is what behaviors and ideals do we, as a society, want to encourage people to strive for? Your narcissism leads you to insist that society should hold up your particular sexual and relationship preferences as part of the ideal. But how can homosexual relationships be the ideal, since everyone following that model would result in the extinction of the species? It's like saying that rather than allowing infertile individuals to marry (a member of the opposite sex), we should encourage them to marry.

I heard a talk that discussed an interesting situation in Turkish Cyprus. They have a situation there where there is a high prevalence of a gene that leads to children with a severe blood deficiency (I forget the details). The children can be cared for, but it is highly expensive. The people there decided that the government should pay for the treatment of these individuals. The problem is that if people mated randomly, so many children would be born with this condition that the government would quickly go bankrupt. So they've developed this system where people get genetically tested, and two people who are carriers are encouraged not to get married (but they aren't banned from marrying if that is what they want.) They also allow for government funding of an abortion for a fetus with the condition. The upshot is, though this is an unusual situation, the society in question had to figure out how to structure its marriage laws in order to keep itself viable. It couldn't just let anyone marry who felt like it, even if both individuals were fertile. The effects won't be as dramatic, and the end results will take longer to play out, but the same restrictions are in play for our society.

Homosexuality exists for a reason, and that is to mitigate the destructive nature of the heterosexual male (to put it in modern terms, to teach the straight guy some manners).

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

You know, I really like Art. Art Fennaddo or whatever. Its a hell of a perspective/ideology.
I think its whats called gay superiority.
Fascinating. Total B.S. but fascinating B.S.
I never know quite how to even respond.
its great- I love it.

You know something Marty? In a backhand sort of way I think Art is reinforcing a typical argument made FOR marriage. It is that the female civilizes the male (i think so) and through marriage and fatherhood we get are rough edges rubbed off.
Except Art has put himself in the place of the female.
Women civilize the male, through marriage.
Thats one way it is dependant on the sexual complematariness.

Michael,

I'm not sure why you responded to my use of the word "sterile" as if I had written "infertile." They're different things. This is by memory (tired memory, at that), but my recollection is that sterile couples make up 1% of infertile couples, or 0.1% of all straight couples. (If I'm wrong, it's most likely that it's just 1% for all straight couples.)

But even a knowingly sterile straight couple does nothing to change the underlying procreative design of marriage itself, as an institution. Looking at them, one would never know that they are sterile.

Arturo, I agree that homosexuality exists for a reason. It is found in all human cultures in about the same percentage of the population, so it must serve somehow to enhance a society's survival, otherwise it would have withered away long ago. Your specific explanation of homosexuality's function seems far-fetched to me, but who knows?

In any case, minorities such as we gays do not have to justify our existence in the eyes of "society" or its spokespeople. Those of you who oppose same-sex marriage should stick to the real issue, the welfare of children, instead of trying to justify anti-gay prejudice.

Your narcissism leads you to insist that society should hold up your particular sexual and relationship preferences as part of the ideal.

Why, in these discussions, is the pro-SSM side always considered narcissistic, while the anti-SSM is altruistic and concerned for society? Why is it not possible for me to be concerned with the negative aspects of not accepting and protecting and encouraging homosexual couples the same as we accept and protect and encourage heterosexual couples? Why is my opinion steeped in narcissism and your opinion not steeped in patriarchy or sexism? Why are my concerns for society more selfish and less valid than your concerns?

What leads you to insist that society hold your particular worldviews and preferences as an ideal? What leads you to insist that society only allow one man and one woman to be married when a not-so-insignificant world Muslim population would beg to differ? What leads you to insist that society hold your particular views ESC research when a majority of the country disagrees? Or any other position that you have? Is that narcissism, Mike? Is it? Or do you simply believe you are right?

I have never criticized anyone on this site for being sexist, patriarchal or homophobic (execpt for homophobic aspects of certain arguments) and I have never attacked the motives or validity of your opinions. My liberal counterparts would not be so generous. I could easily dismiss all your opinions as being narcissistically obsessed with with the preservation of an opressive, patriarchal system that keeps you in a position of power, actual or moral. But I believe you when you say you have something other than your own interests in mind.

If you can't believe that my motives are no less narcissistic than yours, then why we even bother to have this conversation?!?!?!

But how can homosexual relationships be the ideal, since everyone following that model would result in the extinction of the species? It's like saying that rather than allowing infertile individuals to marry (a member of the opposite sex), we should encourage them to marry.

Do you really believe this? Seriously, do you?

Marriage should be the ideal for a homosexual couple. If an infertile individual knew themselves to be infertile, we should encourage them to marry another infertile individual and not dilute the fertile population. MARRIAGE is the ideal, for everyone. If you are heterosexual, then find yourself a heterosexual marriage; if you are homosexual, find yourself a homosexual marriage.

Do you really think that by allowing gays to marry, everyone is going to become homosexual?

But even a knowingly sterile straight couple does nothing to change the underlying procreative design of marriage itself, as an institution. Looking at them, one would never know that they are sterile.

So it's ok to be anti-Semetic, as long as she doesn't look Jewish?

Anyone can look at a childless couple and see that they aren't fulfilling their procreative duties to society. And yet, more often than not, people go on procreating.

And you're right about the "sterile" thing. But even if only one couple in the world were sterile and only one couple were gay, it still wouldn't matter.

No religious group will be forced to marry same-sex couples and religious people will still be able to define their rite the way they choose based on their particular interpretation of the bible or religious text.

Res Ipsa - are you saying that a religious group would not be forced to recognize a state sponsored SSM? In that csae, what's the point of having SSM if no one needs to recognize it? Why not just have your own SSM ceremonies. The whole point of making the state recognize SSM is to force everyone else to recognize them as well. In that sense, SSM is not a private matter (otherwise, most people would not care).

In other words, while you don't want a "theocracy" forcing you not to recongize a SSM, you have no problem with an atheocracy forcing others to recognize SSM. Seems a bit hypocritical.

are you saying that a religious group would not be forced to recognize a state sponsored SSM?

What are you getting at? It already happens. If a Catholic organization knowingly hires a twice married Jew, and they provide their employees with health insurance which covers spouses, they have to recognize her marriage in the legal sense even though the Church doesn't recognize it as a legitimate Catholic marriage. And yet, the church still isn't forced to perform that marriage rite for her.

Matt,

Arturo, I agree that homosexuality exists for a reason. It is found in all human cultures in about the same percentage of the population, so it must serve somehow to enhance a society's survival, otherwise it would have withered away long ago. Your specific explanation of homosexuality's function seems far-fetched to me, but who knows?

You don't know what percentage of the population it is found in worldwide and historically. We only have rough estimates in our over-polled western societies.

The claim that it must enhance survival is specious, though. The appendix doesn't do anything to enhance our survival - in fact, it has a mildly deleterious effect on survival, but we haven't gotten rid of it. Since homosexual tendencies have varying degrees of 'nature' and 'nuture' components, it could easily be a by-product of other factors. Complex traits with a variety of interacting factors are difficult to select for or against, unless the beneficial or negative effects are rather strong. Homosexuality might have some kind of beneficial effect on human society, but you can't posit that simply by the fact that it exists.

c-matt: No religious group is going to be forced to perform marriage rites for same-sex couples if they don't want to. Whether they have to provide insurance or other benefits as an employer is something separate from having to compromise their religious beliefs by performing a ceremony.

Michael,

Why, in these discussions, is the pro-SSM side always considered narcissistic, while the anti-SSM is altruistic and concerned for society? Why is it not possible for me to be concerned with the negative aspects of not accepting and protecting and encouraging homosexual couples the same as we accept and protect and encourage heterosexual couples? Why is my opinion steeped in narcissism and your opinion not steeped in patriarchy or sexism? Why are my concerns for society more selfish and less valid than your concerns?

Pretty much by definition: as has been repeated multiple times by multiple commentators, I don't fear the effects of SSM on my own marriage. My objections always have to do with preserving or strengthening the institution of marriage, largely due to its importance for future generations. I don't doubt that you have genuine concerns for gay couples and their children, and the gay community as a whole. But that group is a small fraction of the society. So your concerns are by definition for yourself, and for the gay community (of which you are a member). The fact that you dismiss the likelihood that the exact same arguments that you make in favor of SSM can be used to support various other types of marriage is another example of your narcissim. It's narcissistic to only focus on the benefits to gay couples, while dismissing concerns about marriage in the larger society, and concerns about other groups using your arguments to expand the definition of marriage. I have recognized that SSM would benefit some gay couples, and some children of gay couples - I haven't dismissed your arguments. I've just pointed out numerous ways in which I think those positive effects would be swamped by negative effects.

What leads you to insist that society hold your particular worldviews and preferences as an ideal?

First of all, American society does, in fact, support the one-man, one-woman ideal of marriage. You could just as well say that my views are in line with the countries as vice-versa. This is another example of your narcissim: the vast majority of Americans reject your model of marriage, yet you have no problem with forcing your model on a society that doesn't want it. As c_matt pointed out, you're not fighting for your right to marry your partner, live with him, love him, or even raise children with him: you're fighting to have everyone else recognize your relationship as legitimate. That's narcissistic.

What leads you to insist that society only allow one man and one woman to be married when a not-so-insignificant world Muslim population would beg to differ?

Need I remind you how homosexuals are treated in most Muslim countries? Surely you're not going to claim moral equivalence between Muslim societies and Western ones?

What leads you to insist that society hold your particular views ESC research when a majority of the country disagrees?

They don't. When people are asked if they favor destroying embryos for research, majorities say no.

Or any other position that you have? Is that narcissism, Mike? Is it? Or do you simply believe you are right?

Sure, sometimes I'm sure I'm right - I'm probably too arrogant about it sometimes. Everybody is narcissistic to some degree. But I'm open to arguments. I used to think there was nothing morally problematic about homosexual behavior, and I was moderately supportive of SSM not that long ago. Like Justin, the more I've looked into it, and the more I've debated with people like you, the more convinced I've become that it will cause serious harm to our society. So it's not like my opinions don't change - they just changed in the wrong direction from your perspective on this issue.

I could easily dismiss all your opinions as being narcissistically obsessed with with the preservation of an opressive, patriarchal system that keeps you in a position of power, actual or moral. But I believe you when you say you have something other than your own interests in mind.

The alternative is throwing out ridiculous, unsupported assertions, or taking our arguments at face value? And we're supposed to be grateful that you're not hurling epithets at us? That's narcissistic.

If you can't believe that my motives are no less narcissistic than yours, then why we even bother to have this conversation?!?!?!

Sometimes I wonder that myself.

But how can homosexual relationships be the ideal, since everyone following that model would result in the extinction of the species? It's like saying that rather than allowing infertile individuals to marry (a member of the opposite sex), we should encourage them to marry.

Do you really believe this? Seriously, do you?

Marriage should be the ideal for a homosexual couple. If an infertile individual knew themselves to be infertile, we should encourage them to marry another infertile individual and not dilute the fertile population. MARRIAGE is the ideal, for everyone. If you are heterosexual, then find yourself a heterosexual marriage; if you are homosexual, find yourself a homosexual marriage.

Do you really think that by allowing gays to marry, everyone is going to become homosexual?

I was referring to the Kantian criteria - what happens if everyone enacted the behavior in question? If everyone followed the traditional model, there would be no STD's, no teenage pregnancies, very few children growing up without a mother or a father, and we'd have plenty of bodies to fill the next generation with (a problem that both contraception and abortion exacerbate, as the piece linked by Fitz in the post about the Alas a Blog situation showed). If everyone followed your model, even if they entered a heterosexual marriage, there would not be a next generation. You are relying on others to produce the next generation, which you will depend on to support you in your old age.

Ouch! ;)

>> Res Ipsa: "Research shows that ..."

Res Ipsa, sources please? Thanks in advance.

Mike S: I was referring to the Kantian criteria - what happens if everyone enacted the behavior in question?

There must be some limits to the applicability of this Kantian criterion. By that logic, shoemaking is less than ideal because if everyone became a shoemaker, then the economy would produce nothing but shoes and we would all starve to death.

Joel:

"Guess that's pretty easy to pull off when you are a totally anonymous commenter."

If this means you would be spamming me with this stuff directly to my email inbox, then I'm obliged to remain totally anonymous.

"However, when scientists demonstrated that homosexuality exists in nature, that argument was pretty much abandoned."

Ah, you're using the we're no better than animals argument. Are you sure you want to stick with the 'monkey see, monkey do' defense?

I do not like green eggs and spam, Sam I am.

My objections always have to do with preserving or strengthening the institution of marriage, largely due to its importance for future generations. I don't doubt that you have genuine concerns for gay couples and their children, and the gay community as a whole. But that group is a small fraction of the society. So your concerns are by definition for yourself, and for the gay community (of which you are a member). The fact that you dismiss the likelihood that the exact same arguments that you make in favor of SSM can be used to support various other types of marriage is another example of your narcissim.

Mike,

Please. I have said it, Jonathan Rauch has said it, many others have too. I believe that allowing gay marriage is not only good for gays, but for straights, the country and marriage as a whole. And yet you still claim that it is a narcissistic position. I believe SSM benefits EVERYONE. You believe it only benefits gays and does damage to straights.

As c_matt pointed out, you're not fighting for your right to marry your partner, live with him, love him, or even raise children with him: you're fighting to have everyone else recognize your relationship as legitimate. That's narcissistic.

But no more narcisistic than fighting to recognize your definition of life, when talking about abortion. Yet you also feel it benefits society as a whole not to abort babies. A society where homosexual relationships are recognized as legitimate is a better society. And I have not dismissed your concerns about the negatives to society. I have *rebutted* them. There is a difference. It seems to me that because I haven't come to the same conclusions that you have, that you say that I'm not addressing them. We've had this discussion before.

The alternative is throwing out ridiculous, unsupported assertions, or taking our arguments at face value? And we're supposed to be grateful that you're not hurling epithets at us? That's narcissistic.

Way to read into that one. You're not supposed to be grateful, you're supposed to be respectful. I address your concerns; you insist I'm a narcisistic queer because I don't agree with them. All I did was point out I am actually looking at the substance of your argument and not assuming underlying ulterior motives; you do not seem to be doing the same.

If everyone followed your model, even if they entered a heterosexual marriage, there would not be a next generation. You are relying on others to produce the next generation, which you will depend on to support you in your old age.

My model? Do you even know what my model is? It is a tighting up of divorce laws while at the same time allowing gays to marry. I want waiting periods for marriage licenses. I am opposed to abortion. I support certain marriage and procreation incentives. But I also support adoption. I want gays to be allowed and be encouraged to marry and adopt, like any sterile or infertile straight couple. So don't compare me to bunch of polyamorous liberals over at Alas, many of whom want to tear down marriage because of some perceived oppressive patriarchy. Does my model sound like the human race is going to still die out???

"My model? Do you even know what my model is? It is a tighting up of divorce laws while at the same time allowing gays to marry."

You aren't willing to enact the former before pursuing the latter, though, are you? In my opinion a truly conservative position that favored SSM would argue that we should shore up the institution of marriage before attempting to change it's definition significantly. Matt Taylor holds something like this position - why don't you?

a truly conservative position that favored SSM would argue that we should shore up the institution of marriage before attempting to change it's definition significantly. Matt Taylor holds something like this position...

That's close to my position, but not exactly the same. I believe SSM should wait until our culture has adapted itself to the idea, which in political terms means waiting until it has popular support. If SSM is imposed from the top down, such as through judicial rulings, then we are trying to artificially push the culture in one direction. Culture is a complex, organic thing that may move in an entirely different direction than it was pushed.

As for divorce ... we should work to reduce divorce, regardless of the SSM question.

Michael said:

"I want waiting periods for marriage licenses."

What would be the purpose of this?

"I support certain marriage and procreation incentives."

What incentives would that be?

"I want gays to be allowed and be encouraged to marry and adopt, like any sterile or infertile straight couple."

Paraphrase Rauch for me since I don't have the time to read it, how would this be a benefit to society that would outweigh the costs? What is the actual benefit, and why is SSM the only way to receive the benefit?

"So don't compare me to bunch of polyamorous liberals over at Alas, many of whom want to tear down marriage because of some perceived oppressive patriarchy."

When comparing the stated goal of enabling SSM, between you and them, what is the difference?

"Does my model sound like the human race is going to still die out?"

I've always thought the end of civilization/humanity/human race result was a bit overstated, but I don't recall that you've ever responded to my suggestions that it will harm the viability of and lead to the replacement of the U.S. society with a less friendly society.

You aren't willing to enact the former before pursuing the latter, though, are you? In my opinion a truly conservative position that favored SSM would argue that we should shore up the institution of marriage before attempting to change it's definition significantly. Matt Taylor holds something like this position - why don't you?

I don't hold that position because I believe that shoring up marriage cannot happen until SSM is legalized. Gays are the last of the minorities with any real politcal power (which is much weaker than you think it is). All of the legal futzing with marriage has been for the granting of equality for a disadvantaged group: divorce and contraception were for women, anti-miscegination for blacks, and domestic partnerships for gays. We need to allow gays to marry to keep legislatures from getting too creative. I find this analogous to what happened eith Roe v. Wade; at the time, it was needed to help break some of the cultural hold that society had on women. But it got out of hand. It never should have become a religion. And now it's almost impossible to stop. The same thing is going to happen with civil unions. In order to grant gays equality we are creating a bigger problem than we already have.

I truly believe that gays deserve to have their relationships recognized. It's not narcissism; I may be personally invested, but I don't believe that I should be living a sub-standard life and making huge personal sacrifices when I see an alternative. If I were convinced that society would collapse if gays could marry, I'd be narcisistic to say "let it happen so I can marry!" But to ask me to throw myself to the wolves when I can see a clear path around them, then why should I?

But once there is a single option for everyone, marriage, then we can get about the real business of fixing what's wrong with it.

But once there is a single option for everyone, marriage, then we can get about the real business of fixing what's wrong with it.

But there IS a single option for everyone (not special options for special people, as you hope for). NOW can we get on with fixing it?

Matt,

There must be some limits to the applicability of this Kantian criterion. By that logic, shoemaking is less than ideal because if everyone became a shoemaker, then the economy would produce nothing but shoes and we would all starve to death.

Yes, and there are limits to my understanding of it ;) I haven't read Kant since college - maybe Ben will jump in here with a more sophisticated description of Kant's argument.

Obviously, if you are too particular about the details, the argument becomes a reductio ad absurdum, but this is true of many arguments. I think there is supposed to be a minimal level of moral weight under consideration - it doesn't apply when choosing which socks to put on in the morning. The point is not that if everyone made shoes for a living, it's if everyone performed a service needed by others for a living, or something along those lines.

This, of course, is the tricky part about applying this to marriage: what is the criteria we are applying? Michael says that it is 'everyone pick one and only one person to commit to for life, who is not already married, who is not a close relative, and who is not under the age of 18.' But to me, the important criteria here is that the genders of the marrying individuals are irrelevant, which means that the production of children is irrelevant, to the definition of marriage. If everyone took the view that the production (and subsequent raising) of children is irrelevant to the definition of marriage, then we would have what we social conservatives fear, and what Kurtz argues is happening in Scandanavia: the complete dissassociation of marriage and procreation. But Michael and other SSM proponents want to have it both ways: they want other people to keep the importance of procreation tightly coupled to marriage (because they don't want a bunch of children born out of wedlock), but at the same to recognize their inherently non-procreative coupling as just as deserving of public recognition (in fact, to have the same public meaning) as the procreative couplings.

Marty and Fitz:

It is fascinating to me that when I point to the “destructive nature of the heterosexual male,” you think I’m peddling some “gay superiority” ideology, when (you well know) a big part of your whole religious enterprise is designed for the sole purpose of controlling the worst of the heterosexual male (to what degree it does this, and to what degree it does the opposite, is a good question). So there should really be no controversy over this. Your (Fitz) labeling it “gay superiority” merely exposes your desperate need to see gays as inferior.

Gays, on their own, would not have come up with the idea of marriage if they had not seen that it works to make heterosexuals’ lives better (better than it would have been without it). So, in this way, straights have “helped” gays. We are here on this earth to learn from each other. There is nothing chauvinistic about that.

There are things that I can say about how gays help straights, but I think it would upset you too much. Twice (that I know of) on this website, Justin, after grudgingly accepting that gays do a great deal to advance society, has made the comment that...well...homosexuals should continue to be oppressed, because it’s how heterosexuals get their great art.

The point [of the Kantian criteria for morality] is not that if everyone made shoes for a living, it's if everyone performed a service needed by others for a living, or something along those lines.

You have removed the absurdity from my shoemaking argument by framing the moral imperative more generally. One could do the same to your argument against homosexuality -- insist only that everyone contribute to the well-being of the society and its future generations, in one way or another.

Procreation is certainly a necessary ingredient to a society's future success, but there are other ingredients just as essential -- industry, education, civil service, defense of the state, religion, science and the arts, just to name a few. Maybe it is not so bad to have a small number of people opt out of procreation and devote themselves more fully to these other endeavors.

But Michael and other SSM proponents want to have it both ways: they want other people to keep the importance of procreation tightly coupled to marriage (because they don't want a bunch of children born out of wedlock), but at the same to recognize their inherently non-procreative coupling as just as deserving of public recognition (in fact, to have the same public meaning) as the procreative couplings.

You're still making a huge leap from allowing non-procreative couples to marry and saying that procreation is irrelevent. It's as if we let gays marry people will all of a sudden not WANT to have kids anymore. I'm gay and even I still want to have kids. Maybe we won't produce as many as we should, but that's ultimately an economic issue. Look, birds do it. Bees do it. Even educated fleas do it. And eventually it leads to babies. It always has and it always will, because whether you are an underclass teenager or a forty-year old executive, chances are you want that little bundle of joy. And don't give me any BS about people wanted to further the race; most people don't have kids out of some great altruistic sense of duty. They have kids because that's what we're wired to want.

We let non-procreative couples marry all the time. We let infertile couples marry because, why? Because they could procreate if they weren't sterile? We let old people marry because, why? Because they could procreate if they weren't so old? Well my partner and I could procreate if one of us were a woman. And that's just about as likely to become true as my grandparents youthening.

Marriage is not a MANDATE to procreate. Procreation flows from marriage, not the other way around. You need a license to drive a car; that doesn't mean you actually have to. A non-procreative marriage may be less valid in the eyes of God (or at least your perception of God) but it isn't in the eyes of the law. We don't punish couples who don't procreate because they can't and we don't punish couples who don't procreate because they don't want to. So why are we punishing homosexuals?

Twice (that I know of) on this website, Justin, after grudgingly accepting that gays do a great deal to advance society, has made the comment that...well...homosexuals should continue to be oppressed, because it’s how heterosexuals get their great art.

Unbelievable, Arturo. This is now the third time that you've attributed something to me that I've never said and don't believe. Just to be clear, when you wildly misread something, or wildly read something else into it, that does not mean that you've discovered the essence and can then proceed to paraphrase what was said so as to mean what you imposed upon it.

Even more unbelievable! Then Matt Taylor (gay male) goes on to make exactly the argument that Arturo attributes to me, with which I do not agree:

Procreation is certainly a necessary ingredient to a society's future success, but there are other ingredients just as essential -- industry, education, civil service, defense of the state, religion, science and the arts, just to name a few. Maybe it is not so bad to have a small number of people opt out of procreation and devote themselves more fully to these other endeavors.

(Yes, we'll pass laws restricting gays to certain careers forthwith. Actually, Kant comes back in for an interesting exercise. Imagine ways in which society would be hurt if it emphasized that those endeavors were alternatives to procreation and encouraged those who pursue them to "opt out of procreation.")

Procreation flows from marriage, not the other way around.

Oh? So if we had no marriage, we wouldn't procreate? Or the other way: if two people marry, they'll be sure to want to procreate? I think you need to give the nature of this link some more thought.

Art: when I point to the “destructive nature of the heterosexual male,” you think I’m peddling some “gay superiority” ideology

Those were your words friend, not mine. Try not to put words into my mouth.

a big part of your whole religious enterprise is designed for the sole purpose of controlling the worst of the heterosexual male

You haven't spent much time in church, have you Art? Or maybe you just weren't listening.

There are things that I can say about how gays help straights, but I think it would upset you too much.

Please, hurt me -- I am nothing if not tolerant of ideas! In fact, i'm dying to hear this and have been hoping you'd get to the point for some days now. How does the barren life of homosexuality "help" the regenerative life of heterosexuality?

--

MT: Procreation is certainly a necessary ... but there are other ingredients just as essential -- industry, education, civil service, defense of the state, religion, science and the arts, just to name a few.

I can't beleive i'm hearing this tripe. Just where the heck do you think industrialists, educators, civil servants, warriors, pastors, scientists and artists come from???.

Maybe it is not so bad to have a small number of people opt out of procreation and devote themselves more fully to these other endeavors.

Opt out? Opt out? Hey man, if you don't want to have kids that's your business. These days, we'll even let you kill the little bastard (versus 18 years of child-support, duh) if you slip up. You can "devote yourself more fully" to anything you want to, with or without kids. You obviously have issues with children and parents. Forgive your folks and seek ye a therapist young man.

--

Michael: I'm gay and even I still want to have kids... They have kids because that's what we're wired to want.

I know you must struggle with this dichotomy. I will pray for you, and encourage others to do so as well. We are left with a certain conclusion that "orientation" is irrelevant to questions of life and death.

So why are we punishing homosexuals?

Who is punishing homosexuals? My daughter wants a pony, and MTV. I said no. Was that a punishment? It's not like i sold her pet or unplugged her television -- she never had them, nor had any realistic hope of ever getting them. But once she's got her little mind made up, she's very hard to dissuade (much like her mother ;) Your perspective is badly tainted here. Did someone say the N word earlier?

Forgive me, friend. All hope is not lost for you. For others, it is too late. Godspeed.

It seems significant that this conversation is taking place most among men, since we do not bear any of the burdens of procreation. All this talk of marriage as a giant procreation production system demonstrates why the more educated and indpendent women become, the more procreation declines. It is women who are subjected to the procreation production system of men with few choices who have the most babies.

There is no procreation crisis in America. Americans are having plenty of babies. The fact that they aren't white babies is what is probably the most