Yesterday, I was sent an e-mail from the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, which I signed up for under a secondary e-mail account. The message suggests talking points that opponents of gay marriage might use when calling into local radio stations:
So, paraphrasing somewhat, the arguments that the Yes on 1 campaign seems to be making are as follows:
1. The new law won't make gay marriage equal to straight marriage. Instead, it will create a new kind of marriage in which gay people and straight people are equal.
2. Although we may not have proven any connection between gay marriage and public education, our opponents haven't disproven the connection, and it's their fault that the subject came up.
3. If gay marriage is upheld, then marriage will exist solely to make people happy.
These arguments run from the literally incoherent (#1) to the sublimely unpersuasive (#3), with #2 somewhere in between. Yet, they are, apparently, the best arguments that the Yes on 1 folks can muster -- the ones they're using to close out their campaign.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people who dislike gay marriage do so for one of two reasons: either their religion has a taboo against homosexuality, or they find the practice gross.
But "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" does not make for a good tagline in a "serious" political discussion. And in Maine, for whatever reason (perhaps because it is one of the least religious states in the country), the Yes on 1 campaign has chosen to deemphasize the religious angle. Meanwhile, the primary "substantive" argument that they've made -- that the same-sex marriage law might alter the public schools curriculum -- has been discredited. This is what they have left to work with.
10.22.2009
Arguments Against Gay Marriage Literally Stop Making Sense
@ 10:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
531 comments
talking point 4: It makes me feel ickey
It's too bad the Pres can't weigh in on these issues. I mean, he's said he wasn't for gay marriage but he also wasn't for creating laws preventing it either. Someone can have an opinion but to enforce an opinion by a law sounds like activism to me.
Are they giving any legal reasons as to why it shouldn't continue in Maine or has it gotten to the point of just misleading peoples instincts?
@l_d_o_f:
As far as I can remember, it's been about misleading people from the beginning. I'm just glad it's so transparently obvious now.
I'm not gay and I haven't spent more than five hours in Maine in my life, but I will be devastated if gay marriage is overturned by Maine voters.
@Mark
I'm not gay and I haven't spent more than five hours in Maine in my life, but I will be devastated if gay marriage is overturned by Maine voters.
Geez, you care about other peoples' rights? What kind of a freak are you? Americans are supposed to only care about themselves.
Thanks you for posting this. I think we need a place where all the scurilous right wing emails get posted and shown the light of day - maybe DailyKOS could do it. These people are deluded, uneducated, and insanely bigoted figures, IMHO.
Rhetorical flourish without the background can often seen incoherent.
Traditionalists have a line of reasoning that, in short form, declares that marriage does not exist merely for the benefit of adults.
Of course, they have no answer when pressed to explain who else might benefit from Newt Gingrich's latest marriage.
Yes, all religious books say that homosexuality is a disease, but if I wanna marry my brother, is their something wrong with that too? Oh, I guess it's alright, as long as we aren't the same sex, right? Maybe we can just go back to the fifties, when men married, then screwed their gay lover on the side? IMHO, let them marry. We can only hope to make it into heaven, right? Why hit people with the bible? The catholic religion has created perversions simply about money, and look what's happening to their flock(getting a little thinned-out, eh?)At least they want to try and live an honest life and be married, right?
OK, time to throw a real argument out there.
For the record, I'm in favor of gay marriage.
HOWEVER, if one was to make an argument against it, here's what it would look like. Keep in mind, these aren't absolutes.
1) Heterosexual parents tend to prefer their children in heterosexual marriages.
2) Heterosexual parents tend to want their children to have children eventually. (They want grandchildren)
3) Straight couples tends to have more children together than gay couples.
4) Some people are 100% straight. Some people are 100% gay. Some people however...fall in the middle. 50/50 gay/straight, 70/30, ect, ect.
5) If straight marriage were to remain the only "legitimate" marriage, then those who fall in the middle would face a societal pressure towards straight marriage...and what the parents tend to want. However, if the two relationships are given equal societal respect...then of those in the middle, more would tend towards gay marriage...likely leading to less "traditional" couples and less grandchildren for the parents who are raising them now.
Marriage is a ceremony directed at cementing a personal relationship with another, and to a lesser degree at celebrating that commitment. As such, it is very much to the advantage of our society to promote, since people in lasting, loving relationships generally make better citizens.
The so-called christians who oppose the establishment of these lasting, loving relationships are thus impeding improved citizenship, and so are in the wrong.
These talking points are obviously not very effective. But, quite frankly, I find Nate's ripotse equally unfair. The ONLY argument against gay marriage is religious "taboo" and personal revulsion? Come on. There are utilitarian arguments against it. There are natural law arguments against it. There are juridprudential arguments against how it was imposed (not in Maine, but elsewhere). You may not find there convincing, but pretending that those opposed to you (still a majority of the country, and including the President) are just frothing bigots is ironically no more serious as political discourse than the lame talking points that first triggered this vapid post.
Legalize pedophilia!
Legalize bestiality!
I want to marry my dog! Stop being intolerant! Give us equality!
Nate:
The argument that the law redefining marriage to include homosexual unions will lead to teachers instructing students on same sex marriage is a non-sequitor because that was already happening prior to the statute. Whether legislative redefinition of marriage will make this practice more prevalent is an open issue. SFMM likes to point to an NPR special reporting on fairly widespread instruction of same sex marriage in MA after four Bay State Supremes imposed same sex marriage. The report is hardly definitive proof, though.
The purpose of raising this argument is to convince libertarian types that the statute redefining marriage is not just something limited to the gay couple down the block and will not affect you or your family, but instead will result in government indoctrination of your kids. I believe SFMM made this case a bit stronger when the legislature defeated an amendment which would have prohibited teachers from instructing students on same sex marriage.
The last point has far more merit. Homosexual unions are not similarly situated to marriage nor do they provide any of the benefits of marriage to society. The only way for the legislature to make homosexual unions equivalent to marriage is to statutorily reduce the two relationships to their lowest common denominator - a contract between any two adults to obtain government benefits. This they have done.
Marriage pre-existed government "civil marriage" and will exist long after Maine's legislature redefined civil marriage down to a contractual relationship for government benefits. What the redefinition of civil marriage does is simply neuter the government encouragement to enter into marriage by making the subsidy available to any pair of adults.
BTW Nate, civil marriage never had anything to do with love or happiness. Civil marriage subsidy was provided whether or not the husband and wife were in love or happy. Civil marriage subsidy has now been extended to homosexual unions whether or not the couple is in love or happy.
Nate:
You are missing the point about ADULTS being "equal" and the whole focus (selfishness) vs. the welfare of children and traditional family as the bedrock of our society.
Jeff:
There are SECULAR reasons for wanting human civilization to continue.
I would like to respond with a single image.
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a5ed8543970b-800wi
As always, I'd welcome any consistency from the rightwing with regard to "traditional" marriage. If they think that marriage should be between one man and one woman, usually (they argue) for the production of children, then any marriage that ends in a divorce, or that does not produce children, isn't "traditional."
If rightwingers who are opposed to same-gender marriages would also support some sort of social stigma for people who get divorced, or couples who are childless, I'd give them props for their lack of hypocrisy. Somehow, though, I don't think they are as concerned with "traditional" marriage as they claim they are.
Pat said...
"Some people are 100% straight. Some people are 100% gay. Some people however...fall in the middle...If straight marriage were to remain the only "legitimate" marriage, then those who fall in the middle would face a societal pressure towards straight marriage...and what the parents tend to want. However, if the two relationships are given equal societal respect...then of those in the middle, more would tend towards gay marriage...likely leading to less "traditional" couples and less grandchildren for the parents who are raising them now."
Assuming that there are a few that "fall in the middle" (which you say but don't give any statistical evidence for), I can't believe they are anything but an extreme minority. I.e., they're not a big enough number to have anything more than a tiny effect.
This is a prime example of a specious argument.
Pat:
Less "grandchildren" are not just the concern of disappointed grandparents. Have you ever heard of sub-replacement fertility problems? Europe right now is facing a disaster in the making:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
juvanya, as soon as you can assure me that your dog is voluntarily choosing to enter into such a relationship (and humping your leg doesn't count) then we'll talk.
Sacto Joe, you undermine your argument about marriage when you focus on the ceremonial aspect of it. Marriages and weddings are not one and the same.
George Taylor:
I'm all for outlawing contraceptives and no-fault divorce.
Charles:
Outlawing contraception?
Go ahead and go to the voters with that argument, see how far it gets you.
Bart, please explain the societal benefit of allowing men like Newt Gingrich the right to ditch their wives in order to marry their most recent affair partner.
As I see it, heterosexuals already redefined marriage.
George Taylor,
I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that most conservatives aren't concerned about divorce, and aren't more prone to "stigmatizing" divorce than liberals, or aren't even at times calling for stricter laws limiting divorce? That's simply not true, in my experience. Of course there are individual hypcrites, such as Limbaugh and Gingrich, who are divorced many times. But there is great deal of concern about divorce among your run of the mill citizens (and not just conservatives).
Too much attention to Maine and not enough to Washington. Another same-sex marriage loss in Maine, while regretable, will be the 32nd loss. SSM has never won an election. However,if we lose Domestic Partnerships in the State of Washington we can kiss our federal marital rights good-bye for a long time to come as DP has never lost an election. Losing in a liberal state like Washington will do much more damage than our 32nd loss in Maine could ever do.
@Charles
Bravo for consistency. But why outlaw only no-fault divorces? Why not all divorces?
Andrey Stroilov:
I agree that we first need to outlaw abortion before we can tackle contraceptives (one step at a time). If we can't prevent same-sex marriage, we won't be able to stop polygamy or incest either.
peter ho:
Dissolution of a marriage produces harm to society. The easy availability of divorce does not redefine marriage, but rather attacks the institution.
There are utilitarian arguments against it. There are natural law arguments against it. There are juridprudential arguments against how it was imposed (not in Maine, but elsewhere). You may not find there convincing, but pretending that those opposed to you (still a majority of the country, and including the President) are just frothing bigots is ironically no more serious...
Mmm, no, that's not irony. What's irony is that the post following yours is:
Legalize pedophilia!
Legalize bestiality!
I want to marry my dog! Stop being intolerant! Give us equality!
Bart:
What the redefinition of civil marriage does is simply neuter the government encouragement to enter into marriage by making the subsidy available to any pair of adults.
Keep in mind that there are numerous benefits to marriage outside of the government.
One major example would be that a married gay couple would be able to utilize a family insurance plan, whereas an unmarried couple may or may not be able to use it. Hospital visitation rights, joint bank accounts, that sort of thing.
As for benefits from the government, they're not usually monetary. The big thing, one of the major drivers of gay marriage, is custody rights of children. If your partner dies and he or she had a child, under current law the grandparents often have a better claim than you. Another example would be protection from having to testify against your husband/wife. These don't cost the government anything, yet they are "benefits" that straight married couples take for granted.
George Taylor:
One step at a time.
"Homosexual unions are not similarly situated to marriage nor do they provide any of the benefits of marriage to society"
I'm not sure what these "benefits to society" you're talking about are but I have an opposite point for you.
Denying homosexuals the institution of marriage has a negative affect on society.
There will always be gay men and women and denying them rights doesn't make this less so.
What it does do is make them outcasts within society. This makes them more likely to flout societies other "rules" (regarding monogomy, drug use, self care, resposibility).
Denying gay men and women a path to become a regular equal members of society (a key piece of this is marriage and all the benefits that accrue from that) makes them less productive members of society.
So maybe gays marrying doesn't provide the same "benefits" you see for straight individuals ... but sidelining us most certainly does have a negative affect on society.
Wasted money and time fighting for rights and benefits that should naturally be ours that could be spent on much more useful things.
Ian:
There will "always" be murderers too. Should we not address murder either?
There are already too many people on this earth, including unwanted children. Seems to me allowing gay couples to get married and adopt would be two steps in the right direction.
This is why gay marriage has been relatively successful in the courts. People argue their points and the judges decide who has the best position. Or at least that's the way it is supposed to work. Sometimes it actually does, too.
Chris:
I do not accept your first premise. Did you read the link re: problems Europe is facing with declining population numbers?
Kennyb:
Do you honestly believe that "There are already too many people on this earth" is a valid legal argument?! I recall that Hitler used it once too.
Given that the pro-gay-marriage campaign has this video in its arsenal, I'm betting on a victory for equality in this fight.
Warning: you may need a hankie or some kleenex nearby when you watch this.
(P.S. sad, but unsurprising, to see this thread confirm that small-minded bigotry and hatred are the sole motivations behind the anti-gay-marriage side)
Chris:
Most European analysts hope, with the help of government incentives and large-scale change towards family-friendly policies, to stall the population decline and reverse it by around 2030, if it's not already too late.
Charles, gay people are like murderers? Really?
yoink:
I don't hate homosexuals.
peter hoh:
I never said that. I am using that example to "test" Ian's logic.
That didn't take long...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
If the sanctity of marriage is so important to right wingers why have they been, as of recently, overwhelmingly ignoring their pledge of till death do we part in the eyes of God?
It's selfishness and ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
Are you suggesting that most conservatives aren't concerned about divorce, and aren't more prone to "stigmatizing" divorce than liberals, or aren't even at times calling for stricter laws limiting divorce? That's simply not true, in my experience. Of course there are individual hypcrites, such as Limbaugh and Gingrich, who are divorced many times.
You are absolutely right that conservatives are more concerned about divorce, that they "stigmatize" divorce more than liberals, and are calling for stricter laws regarding divorce. That is all absolutely true.
It is also true that divorce rates are significantly higher in conservative states than in liberal states, and among conservative Christians than liberal Christians.
I mean, I like that your "individual hypocrites" are the leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution and the current ideological leader of the Republican Party, respectively. Your last Presidential candidate cheated on and divorced his crippled wife. Your current Senate leader is divorced. Your last House leader was divorced.
And then there are those of us who *have* biological children, but the inability to have a subsequent marriage recognized causes them financial harm. Won't you please think of the children.
One thing that no one has talked about is that we have had legal same-sex marriages in this country for *decades*. When a married transsexual transitions to another gender, their marriage remains intact. And the sky hasn't fallen from that.
(Although, ironically, the rise of same-sex marriage as a political issue has made it *more* difficult for those of us in legal, same-sex marriages to have them respected.)
Good lord, the thread pirate has appeared. I think some folks must get paid by the comment, regardless of length.
Resist piracy, mates! Don't let our mighty ship get steered to the Doldrums!
Charles- do you understand that murder is a crime? We will always have criminals, and we address them with laws, and punishment. I hope you aren't suggesting that homosexuals are criminals. Good, thanks.
Also, what is the worst possible consequence of a slowly decreasing population? I mean, besides certain doom...
Yeah, it'll be a loooooong time before human beings are on the endangered species list, Charles (although with what we humans eat, we sure may get there someday). Oh, and just so you don't get confused, I'm not advocating the imprisonment, torture, and extermination of a group of people. Just saying, if there are loving families (gay or not) unable to have children, and there are children without families, it'd be great if we could hook 'em up. Sorry if that happens to be straight out of Mein Kampf. I haven't read it.
I do not accept your first premise. Did you read the link re: problems Europe is facing with declining population numbers?
Except that very few people are accepting Pat's premise that there is a large group of people who would be gay-married if gay marriage was legal, but will get straight-married and pump out some kids if it's not.
As such, your argument is a non sequitur. Making gay marriage legal or illegal almost certainly has very little effect on the birth rate.
(Obviously gay people are less likely to have kids now than they were in the past when homosexuality was despised or worse and they had to hide it, but it's going to be tough to put that genie back in the bottle.)
Clearly, in fertile people have no right to marry. If you don't have at least one baby after the first year, your marriage should be annulled and perhaps you should be imprisoned.
Once people are beyond the age of fertility, and their kids have moved out, the marriage must be annulled.
Divorce is grounds for capital punishment - it makes a mockery of traditional marriage.
Adulterers should be stoned to death.
Sale of contraceptives needs to be published with at least 5 years in prison, because the only people who can use contraceptives are married people (sex outside of marriage is punishable by death) and we can't stop married people from having babies.
Until anti-same-sex-marriage people begin advancing these laws, they should shove their hypocrisy somewhere tight.
Sorry for the typos in my previous post...
I forgot, sex outside of the time of a woman's fertile cycle is prohibited. Forms of sex that don't lead to pregnancy (oral, etc.) are prohibited. Masturbators get their hands cut off.
Either be consistent or be laughed at.
Of course there are individual hypcrites, such as Limbaugh and Gingrich, who are divorced many times.
OK, OK, one more comment and then I swear I'll shut up for half an hour or so.
Anyone remember how Barack Obama even got elected Senator? He was probably going to be facing an unassailable incumbent, Jack Ryan... until Ryan had to withdraw a week after his incredibly-scandalous divorce records were released.
(And, of course, they picked Alan Keyes to replace him, who had never been divorced but did later take the family-friendly step of cutting off his gay daughter. (Although, since he had called Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" for being a lesbian less than a year before, I guess he didn't have much of an option.))
I agree that the arguments against sanctioned gay marriage are inconsistent. Any utilitarian OR religious argument against gay marriage should also preclude divorce. As such, you have a nebulous appeal to the "ick" factor.
However, the best arguments for gay marriage are similarly (in degree) hamstrung. If this is an issue of personal autonomy, and personal autonomy thereby trumps religion and tradition, then there is no reason to forbid polygamous or incestuous marital arrangements.
I should note that it is not necessary to make a moral comparison between homosexuals and polygamists in order to demonstrate this inconsistency. Both groups are similar insofar as they flaunt tradition, and that similarity is sufficient for the purposes of this argument.
By my lights, the whole issue demonstrates the futility of government-sanctioned marriage. The solution would be to privatize the whole institution. It would save money and simplify the tax code, if nothing else.
All the arguments in this thread against gay marriage also work against straight marriage of couples who don't plan to have children or are infertile. I never plan to have children, my girlfriend is more deadset against it than I am, even if we were married any pregnancy would be quickly terminated. Should we not be allowed to get married?
thanks for the column Nate
The hysterical homobigots use that crazy scare tactic all the time.....well we can't prove this about gays and lesbians...BUT......maybe they eat puppies and kick old nuns.
I hope Maine voters see through this RUBBISH, especially Maine voters under 35 yo who have known openly gay folks all their lives, and know this crud is lies....not even good lies, this stuff INSULTS YOUR INTELLIGENCE.
Vote NO on question1
Friends gay and straight from Pam's House Blend (both Maine residents and people doing vacation visits) are giving this fight their ALL...good luck
Kevin-
I don't think you can use incest in your example, though I do think polygamy fits. Incest has actual biological consequences for a non-consensual party, the potential child. I'm not sure I have any moral issue with polygamy, it would just have to be well-defined from a legal standpoint. As long as all parties consent, it seems morally viable.
Shap:
Yes, I understand that murder is a crime? Do you understand that homosexual acts were a crime until Lawrence v. Texas? Read Scalia's dissent in that case if you think I am the only one concerned about this issue.
Chris:
Not that "loooooong" of time if you read my link. I also accept your apology for (unknowingly?) spouting eugenics.
@Kevin Sawyer
By my lights, the whole issue demonstrates the futility of government-sanctioned marriage. The solution would be to privatize the whole institution. It would save money and simplify the tax code, if nothing else.
Yes. It's a shame that the religious idea of "marriage" has gotten conflated with the legal idea of "union". That's what happens form the fact that our culture is descended from the theocracies of the Middle Ages.
The legal idea has to do with joint ownership of property, rights of inheritance and visitation in hospitals and prisons, joint custody of offspring, that sort of thing. It's a legal contract, and as such, any adults who wish to form such a legal contract should have the right to do so.
The religious idea has to do with what a given church or denomination sanctions. That should be up to the church or denomination, and should have no legal standing - or legal impediments. The First Amendment should be honored.
But we're way past the point where this sane approach is immediately possible, I think. The best we can do is end the discrimination in a legal sense - allow adults to form legal "marriage" contracts, and ignore the religious issue in the legislative process. The religious issues will take care of themselves as individual churches decide what sorts of marriages they wish to perform.
Shap:
"Incest" is also prohibited for ADULTS (who simply "love" each other too). Who are we to DENY them want they honestly want?
Charles: Consumption of alcohol was once a crime, too. Both in general and on Sundays, in particular. Interracial marriage was also a crime. What's your point?
My point is that if we allow two adults of the same sex to get married, there's no legal way to stop two adults who are related from getting married. I thought I made that very clear. Read Scalia's dissent for the technical points and case citations.
Charles-
Do you understand that Lawrence v. Texas was a great decision, and that Scalia was wrong?
What's next, are you going to say we should make slavery legal again? What's your stand on Loving v. Virginia?
Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Take your moral equivalence elsewhere, clown.
Persuter said...
One major example would be that a married gay couple would be able to utilize a family insurance plan, whereas an unmarried couple may or may not be able to use it. Hospital visitation rights, joint bank accounts, that sort of thing.
Insurers and businesses are free to extend benefits to the partners in homosexual unions and have done so without redefining civil marriage.
As for benefits from the government, they're not usually monetary. The big thing, one of the major drivers of gay marriage, is custody rights of children. If your partner dies and he or she had a child, under current law the grandparents often have a better claim than you. Another example would be protection from having to testify against your husband/wife. These don't cost the government anything, yet they are "benefits" that straight married couples take for granted.
The executive and judicial enforcement of family law costs a great deal of tax money.
No.
@Bart:
The biggest threat to straight marriage is the behavior of unfaithful straight people. Speaking of which---why is it that the most famous hetero opponents of gay marriage wind up being the freakiest in private? They actually wind up proving a big point of the other side---that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are ultimately reponsible for themselves and don't influence each other's sexual behavior.
Charles said...
No.
Good. Apology accepted (although I know you would never admit you got schooled)
BlueRevolution:
If we can't even stop same-sex "marriage" we will never repeal no-fault divorce laws. One step at a time, my friend.
Fun reading the comments thus far. However, I'm still at a loss why it is that the anti-gay marriage camp is against gay marriage. Yes I've heard all of the arguments from ridiculous to constructed. However, at the end of the day, how does someone getting married, gay or straight, effect the course of your life (unless they are friends of yours and you get to attend a fun reception).
Can someone please explain how this? For example, you live in Texas and a gay couple gets married in Maine. Please provide specific details as to how this effects, changes, ruins your life. No religious references or rehashed talking points please.
I typed in a very long comment explaining how the Mormons are a political front group and are trying to pull another Prop 8 action.
I lost the post in the comment system and do not have time to retype. So PLEASE drop the political correctness that liberals have where you think you can't say anything bad about a church because it shows that you're intolerant. In the case of Mormons, you are NOT, repeat, NOT dealing with a church, you are dealing with a theocratic state-within-a-state that is an international multi-billion dollar operation. They are licking their chops waiting for the US government to fail so they can replace it with a theocracy.
This ain't Mormon-bashing. It's just the truth.
Shap:
I never apologized. Here it is again, spelled out.
Q: Do you understand that Lawrence v. Texas was a great decision, and that Scalia was wrong?
A: No.
Q: What's next, are you going to say we should make slavery legal again?
A: No.
Ad hominem personal attack: Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Take your moral equivalence elsewhere, clown.
A: No.
Kyle:
The literal end of human civilization is just a "talking point" to you?
Kyle, these are the reasons I've collected so far-
1 - think of the CHILDREN (nannies)
2 - icky (curious?)
3 - bible (religiots)
4 - world population would be decimated within 20 years (secular bigots)
@Kyle
However, at the end of the day, how does someone getting married, gay or straight, effect the course of your life (unless they are friends of yours and you get to attend a fun reception).
It's easy, Kyle. If same-sex marriage was legal, the people who are opposed to it are afraid they'd be tempted to try it. So it might destroy the marriage they're already in. Being gay is just that hot.
An Utter Dolt writes:
My point is that if we allow two adults of the same sex to get married, there's no legal way to stop two adults who are related from getting married.
This is simply untrue. It is no more true that saying "if we allow black and white people to marry, we won't be able to prevent people marrying their dogs!" It has exactly the same logical force as that statement.
The state can show a compelling interest in preventing incestuous marriage; it can show no such interest in preventing gay marriage (the bizarre arguments resorted to in this thread prove that!). QED.
Similarly for polygamy; the state is perfectly free to say "we recognize marriage solely as a contract between two consenting individuals": how on earth does becoming gender-blind with regard to those individuals force the state to also become number blind?
yoink:
I would never equate an African-American to a dog.
Insurers and businesses are free to extend benefits to the partners in homosexual unions and have done so without redefining civil marriage.
And they are also free not to do that.
The executive and judicial enforcement of family law costs a great deal of tax money.
And what? You didn't even try to suggest that legalized gay marriage would increase those costs. Take my example of child custody automatically transferring - are you trying to suggest that that would cost the government more money than the unmarried partner suing for custody?
Not to mention, I love you make this comment immediately after nonchalantly suggesting that all companies should just have two separate rules for domestic partners and married couples.
@yoink
how on earth does becoming gender-blind with regard to those individuals force the state to also become number blind?
You forget, righties don't have any concept of either logic or context. Once a fear-meme takes root, it's there for life.
Eugenics now, Charles? Come on. I will give you points on your creativity, but your reading comprehension score is not impressing anyone. Seriously, how is finding loving homes for foster kids an exercise in eugenics? Not even Rush could pull that one off.
As for your, um, contributions, I read your article. Did you? Here's an excerpt.
"Current estimates expect the world's total fertility rate to fall below replacement levels by 2050, although population momentum will continue to increase global population for several generations beyond that. The promise of eventual population decline helps reduce concerns of overpopulation, but many believe the Earth's carrying capacity has already been exceeded and that even a stable population would not be sustainable."
And, here I thought that PREVENTING THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIATION was an actual compelling interest for government; throw out all that stuff about "form a more perfect Union" to "ourselves and our Posterity".
Charles...
The literal end of human civilization is just a "talking point" to you?
I thought we are talking about gay marriage and not global warming. Can you prove that gay marriage is going to end human civilization? Please provide specific numbers please. Also, you didn't answer my request :(
Chris:
Not if everyone was in a same-sex marriage ...
I dunno, Charles. Look on the bright side of shrinking world population. At least there would be fewer obnoxious internet trolls... :)
An Utter Dolt writes:
The literal end of human civilization is just a "talking point" to you?
"The literal end of human civilization"? I take it that your feeling is that the sole thing preventing you from marrying someone of the same sex as yourself is the fact that it is illegal, right?
I'm sorry to have to break this to you, Charles, but most straight people actually like having sex with people of the opposite sex. They don't need laws and social disapproval to force them to have sex with people of the opposite sex. Really, you should feel free to just go with what are pretty obviously your fundamental desires without letting this fear that every other straight person will follow you down that road.
I'm sure you think I'm being glib, here, but I'm really not. As a straight man, the idea that legalizing gay marriage will make otherwise straight people suddenly "turn" gay is laughable on its face. It's like saying that legalizing telepathy will give me the ability to read minds. And yet it obviously seems a real worry to you and others like you. I can only assume that this is because you don't actually enjoy the idea of sex with women; you do it solely out of a sense of religious duty. Well, that's your prerogative, but I'm here to tell you that you can give that duty up and the great work of procreation will continue on without you.
Kyle:
ONE murder does not impact anyone other than the murderer, victim, friends and family. If EVERYONE was murdered, though, the cumulative effect would be evident. If there's something else I have not already stated that you still have a question about, please ask.
Nate,
The schools argument is the strongest argument for the anti side. It obviously won for them in CA and polls are turning to that side in Maine. You have to have a better answer than just pooh-poohing it.
Do we, as a society, have to give up on promoting marriage lest some nincompoop teacher read King and King to second graders?
So your big fear, Charles, is that everyone is going to enter into a same-sex marriage? Seriously?
@Jeff - There are a great many arguments over this issue that are not based in religion, however those arguments seeking to criminalize gay marriage are universally coming from the belief in the supremacy of big-government: the concept that government exists to grant rights and that rights not expressly given to the people by the government do not exist. That concept is in tension with the principles of the Constitution and the limitation on government power.
In this country gay marriage cannot be made legal. It already is legal and has been since 1787 upon the ratification of the US Constitution. It is the laws making it illegal which are themselves illegal because those laws presume a power of government that they do not lawfully possess. Having government dictate a uniform standard on marriage is an attack on the religious independence on the country's houses of worship. No government, whether it be federal, state or local, has the authority to dictate to its citizens or its houses of worship what their standards for marriage must be.
Anyone who genuinely calls themselves a conservative will be staunchly opposing any attempt by big-government to regulate or define consensual marriage. As a conservative myself, I am staunchly opposed to any attempt by government to tell me what my beliefs should be and who I can and cannot marry with their consent. That is my business and not that of big-government.
Charles, I do have one question for you. Are you a poe? If not, then I can assure you, you are not helping further the cause which you espouse.
Charles -
A) it is possible for babies to be born out of wedlock. Surprising, I know, but it happens.
B) If same-sex marriage is legal, there is no evidence that every single individual on earth would refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Oh wait, I forgot. Gay is just that hot.
No, Chris, that's not needed for the end of human civiliation. If 49% of marriages were same-sex, that would be more than enough.
Ian said...
Denying homosexuals the institution of marriage has a negative affect on society.
No one is denying homosexuals the institution of marriage. Homosexuals are free to marry. Moreover, homosexuals can proclaim that their unions are marriages with ceremonies and rings and no one will try to stop them.
What it does do is make them outcasts within society.
Half of society is unmarried. Are you really contending they are all outcasts?
In reality, this effort is meant to compel society to recognize homosexual unions as equally important as marriage. No matter how satisfying they may be to the partners, homosexual unions are not as important to society as marriage because marriage provides benefits that homosexual unions do not.
This makes them more likely to flout societies other "rules" (regarding monogomy, drug use, self care, resposibility).
I assume you have actual science to back up your claim that homosexual couples who entered into civil marriage suddenly became less likely to sleep around and use drugs.
It is important to recognize that it is the institution of marriage as the union of man and woman that creates the benefits to the husband and wife, their children and to society as a whole. The civil marriage subsidy does not create any of those benefits, it only encourages entry into the relationship of marriage.
There is no evidence that homosexuals who represent themselves to be "married" incur any personal benefits or provide any benefits to society by so representing themselves, regardless of whether society subsidizes the relationship.
Charles: I'm confused. How does population decline argue against same-sex marriage? The only way to argue it negatively affects population growth is to assume that gay people will enter into heterosexual marriages and reproduce if given no other alternative. And, that's just not gonna happen. I would argue the opposite. Gay marriage increases the number of adoptions and it also encourage gay couples to have their own biological children.
shrinkers:
Please see my last post to Chris.
Charles...
ONE murder does not impact anyone other than the murderer, victim, friends and family. If EVERYONE was murdered, though, the cumulative effect would be evident. If there's something else I have not already stated that you still have a question about, please ask.
Well, we aren't arguing for the legalization of murder here are we, so why would you make this point? My question to you, imho, remains unanswered.
Just A Student:
I'm sorry that your are confused. Maybe start by realizing NO same-sex couple can have natural, biological children of their own.
Kyle:
One same-sex couple in Maine is not my concern. It's the cumulative effect that I am talking about. Does that answer your question?
That's why they have supernatural crime-fighting superhero children. Please define "natural."
Gay is just that hot.
Isn't it incredibly sad to think of those people (like Charles and like so many of those "family values" Republicans who end up in gay scandals) who grow up thinking that being straight means a constant struggle to force yourself to desire people of the opposite sex? Who think that the world stands poised on the edge of universal homosexuality if the social and religious bulwarks that (just) hold them back from acting out their deepest physical desires are relaxed even for an instant. God, what a sorry waste of spiritual and mental effort!
Charles, just be yourself! Go take a gay lover and be happy with who you are. Believe me--there will still be plenty of us who swing the other way to keep the planet populated without you.
Matt:
Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.
I agree with yoink. Charles thinks that legalization of gay marriage will force him to come out of the closet and marry another gay man.
Charles, I am here to reassure you, if gay marriage is legalized, you are still free to remain closeted.
@Charles
No, Chris, that's not needed for the end of human civiliation. If 49% of marriages were same-sex, that would be more than enough.
You are perhaps assuming A) somewhere around 50% of people who want to enter into marriages are gay, B) no children are ever born out of wedlock, C) no gay couples would arrange to have biological children (through in-vitro, surrogates, or other methods), and D) the average metero couple has no more than 2 children.
None of these assumptions are necessarily valid, and all are unproven, at best.
See my comment above re: fear-meme.
Isn't that from Kindergarten Cop?
Charles: I see where our miscommunication lies. When one parent is the biological parent of a child, I consider that child to be the biological child of the marriage. I know its crazy. There are a plethora of gay couple that use surrogates and sperm donors to give birth to children which are biologically related to one of the parents. It's actually quite common. And, the funny this is its quite common in straight couples as well. So, again, I ask, how does population decline argue against same-sex marriage? Perhaps answer this time?
I am confused why it is even an issue that students may be taught about gay marriage in school. What exactly is wrong with that? The schools aren't teaching them to get married, just that it exists. Are people opposed to that because they think this will somehow "recruit" new gays?
Charles writes:
If 49% of marriages were same-sex, that would be more than enough.
So that's your guess at the real number of gay people in society, is it, Charles? 49%?
You poor, poor thing. I feel so sorry for you, trapped in your well of self-hatred, that I can't even keep up the "utter dolt" thing (no matter how well it fits).
Christ, man. No straight person would ever think the way you think. Just be yourself; you'll be happier in the long run.
I honestly don't understand the analogy Charles is making in regards to 'murderers'. I do find it interesting that whenever there is some kind of slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage it's always some kind of deviant behavior: pedophilia, incest, drug abuse, or in this case, murder. Of course, human sexuality ISN'T a behavior, it's an innate part of the 'makeup' of every human.
Ironically, heterosexual murderers have the right to get married. Whereas, law abiding, tax paying gay citizens do not. For some reason, I have a big problem with that.
Charles,
Yes you answered the question. I asked you how a singular seemingly non-important event has an influence on your life, and you said it doesn't.
Can we move onto issues that really will have an impact on the world population now?
shrinkers:
I am not arguing that babies don't get born out of wedlock or that every single individual on earth would refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is a "tipping point" however, where too many same-sex marriages would, in fact, lead to the end of human civilization, regardless of IVF or cloning or whatever other unnatural methods you propose. It's simple math, really.
Charles: This is fivethirtyeight. Show us the math.
Chris:
Yes (Matt wanted a definition of "natural" so I thought I'd better start slow).
Simple math?
1) Legalize homosexual marriage
2) ?
3) Utter destruction of human civilization
Don't you dummies get it?
Charles -
There is equally a tipping point where too many hetero marriages would lead to an end of civilization, through overpopulation and the various ills that causes. Perhaps we should make herero marriages illegal?
Charles,
The only way you could possibly think that everyone would end up gay marrying if it were allowed is if you find the option of being gay so appealing that the only thing stopping you is that it isn't accepted by our culture. This is definitely not the way that normal straight people think. People who are actually straight would not suddenly want to enter a gay marriage because guess what?.. they are straight and not attracted to the same sex. If you or anyone else would want to get gay married when it is accepted I have some news for you.. you aren't 100% straight.
"My point is that if we allow two adults of the same sex to get married, there's no legal way to stop two adults who are related from getting married."
First, this isn't true. It's very easy to legally differentiate same gender from same family.
Second, if the concern about incest is them getting married, then are you not concerned about them having kids? Do you realize that a law preventing marriage between family members is not equivalent to a law preventing relations/child-rearing between family members?
Third, do you actually have any clue how rare it is to see a law regarding relations enforced in this country? I remember reading in high school that the only legal method to engage in VA is with someone to whom you are married, missionary, with your socks on. I don't know if this is still on the books, but if so, I know of thousands (millions?) who violate it regularly.
Marriage != relations, so you can drop the fantasy that laws regarding one will regulate actions on the other. The whole baby thing is just an irrelevant distraction.
Charles: Hi! Me again. My logic can be so annoying, right? Anywho, your argument to shrinkers is based on some glaring assumptions: That straight=making babies, gay=not making babies, and if given the choice between straight marriage or gay marriage half of all people would choose gay marriage. I think the root of all this is that you still believe that gay is a choice (which is how I know you're not gay, despite what they're suggesting in other posts). Gay is not a choice. Absorb that. Now its time to move on. People are gonna be gay whether you like it or not. Gay people are more likely to have kids if they're married. Hey, they're just like straight people! Who knew?!
Isn't a simpler definition of "natural" just "occurring in nature"? You know, like wind, and water, and homosexuality, and.. Aw crap, would you look at that...
Matt and Just A Student:
It was in the link I provided above. The replacement rate (just to keep the population constant) is the total fertility rate at which newborn girls would have an average of exactly 1 daughter over their lifetimes. In more familiar terms, women have just enough babies to replace themselves.
If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). However, the replacement level is also affected by mortality, especially childhood mortality. The replacement fertility rate is, therefore, roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken globally, then, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero. It may take a long time, but consider that the lower the rate gets, the quick that inevitable result will occur. Do you want the specific number of years assuming a 1.3 rate, as an example?
Shap,
I love that formula!! Now, if we could only define what that ? variable is. My money is on global warming or nuclear annihilation.
Charles: Right...But you also need to work through the other half of the equation, under both the assumption of legalized same sex marriage and no legalized same sex marriage. Otherwise, that data is useless for arguing your point.
Kyle,
If the underpants gnomes couldn't figure it out, what chance do we have?
Chris: Well, you already managed to eliminate 2 of the 3 question marks, which is more than they ever managed, so you're almost there!
Matt: thank you for pointing that out.
Chris: the info is only relevant if you assume that same-sex marriage will lead to a decline. You've refused over and over again to address the argument that same-sex marriage will increase the birth rate.
The bottom line is that once you sort through the non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, strange logical leaps, absurd claims about population shrinking (seriously WTF?), and strained attempts to find slippery slopes, the only reasons to oppose equal marriage are hatred and fear.
It may be hatred of one's own desires and fear of not being able to control them
It may be hatred driven by absorbing right-wing talking points and fear of living in the real world
It may be hatred based on fear of people different than you, and the most mindless people may actually be able to convince themselves of their illogical talking points
But it always comes back to hatred and fear
Just A Student: Don't get Chris and Charles confused.
Hint: Charles is the birther.
Matt:
We can, at least, agree that (all things being equal) same-sex couples produce LESS CHILDREN than opposite-sex couples, right? It's common sense, then, that the more same-sex couples we permit in a given population, the less total children. Now, I agree for my "worst-case" scenario to take place, the overall society has to maintain a negative population replacement rate, and I do not know what the likelihood that each branch of this family tree will act independently in deference to their history to maintain this reducing rate, but (at some point in terms of keeping the type of advanced human civilization we have now) sooner or later, we can pass the point of no return.
I think Charles has made the argument that straight married couples should be required to have at least 3 children. Otherwise civilization will eventually end. Any couples that don't fulfill their societal obligation should have their marriages annulled.
This, of course, has no bearing on whether gay couples should have the right to marry. Whether they do or don't get married, it will not change the population either way.
@Charles
I offer you my grudging congratulations, amigo. You have commandeered yet another thread with your short, verbally efficient if irrational comments.
All hail that heavy mojo you swing.
Just A Student:
We'll have to agree to disagree that (all other things being equal) same-sex couples produce LESS CHILDREN than opposite-sex couples.
Yikes! Sorry about that Chris!
Charles!!!: We don't PERMIT same-sex couple to exist. Same-sex marriage doesn't encourage people to 'become' gay! How do you not understand this yet? How many people do you think are closeted-ly (yay! new word!0 procreating right now?!
David in Houston:
That's not true. ANY person in a same-sex marriage, who would have otherwise "stayed in the closet" and gotten married, is more likely to produce LESS children. What part of the BIRDS AND BEES are you people having trouble understanding?!
Just A Student: Wait, what argument have I refused over and over to address?
Charles -
Do you imagine that gay people will have less children than they do now, if same-sex marriages were legal? Can you cite any studies as evidence of that? And can you cite any studies that show this supposed decline would lead to an undesirable decline in population? (We'd have to go a long long way - hundreds of years at least - before any such population decline would be dangerous to the existence of civilization...)
Okay, I've persuaded myself that wingnuts are completely insane...
Just A Student: Nevermind. No harm, no foul. Although I feel like I need a shower anyway...
Just A Student:
I have no idea how many "closeted-ly" people are married to opposite-sex partners and, at this very moment in bed, procreating right now. Watching Jerry Springer, there are a lot of them though ; )
These strings on gay marriage always generate more heat than light. Why? I think its because the whole battle is disingenuous. Both sides are struggling over the public status of homosexuality itself. Should it be "normalized", or simply "tolerated". Should distaste for it be standard, or stigmatized. Etc. I think this is at the base of the dispute, but neither side wants to admit it. So opponents gravitate toward pretty thin "utilitarian" objections. On the other hand, proponents pretend that this is all about their private rights, and that this won't constrain the broader society at all. That's no true either - our public norms are in many ways shared norms. They are propagated in schools, on TV, in public discussion. Hold outs are stigamtized. Gay marriage proponents want not just marriage, but the weight of the culture on their side.
So the whole debate just spins and spins. One side pretends its all about social stability, the other that its all about rights. But the real fight is about whether or not homosexuality will have the same moral standing as heterosexuality in our society. If the society says - gays must be tolerated and have rights, but not access to marriage - then a mild stigma is preserved. If the society says, no, gays have access to marriage full stop, then opponents of gay marriage will increasingly find themselves marginalized as "anti-social".
Leaving aside one's own view of the matter, I think the debate is almost entirely pointless because it is fundamentally dishonest on both sides.
Charles: I think I'm finally starting to catch on. You're suggesting that legalization of same-sex marriage will end the now-existing guilt trip we've been putting on the gays which has in turn gotten them to enter into hetero couplings and make babies. And, if we legalize same-sex marriage, those brow-beaten mo's will stop folding under societies pressures. And, thus, the people who have been making babies because that's what they're supposed to do will no longer feel that obligation. Is that right?
People, people, people. Look, the logic is completely obvious. If you legalize ANY form of marriage, then EVERYONE will indulge in that form of marriage, right?
For example:
Right now it's legal for a man to marry an infertile woman. If every single marriage were of a man to an infertile woman, humanity would be doomed. Therefore such marriages must be banned. It's just simple math, people.
Also, it's legal for a 90 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman. Clearly if every single marriage were of 90 year old men to 18 year old women and there were no children born out of wedlock (as, of course, we know there never are) the future of the human race would be in peril. Obviously such marriages must be banned! It's simple maths!
Also, it's currently legal for black people to marry white people. But there's a huge imbalance in the number of black and white people in the United States. If these were the ONLY marriages taking place (or even 50%of the marriages taking place) and no births occurred out of wedlock, then there would be no way thatthe US could sustain its population. Once again, simple math has spoken! Marriage between black and white people must be outlawed!
(You see Charles, your sexual frustration seems to be clouding your capacity for logical thinking).
Just A Student:
That's a part of it. Also, those actual "bi-sexuals" out there would tend to choose same-sex pairings more (with less children) if stigma continues to decline.
Jeff:
How is THE LITERAL END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT a pretty thin "utilitarian" objection?
Jeff writes:
So the whole debate just spins and spins. One side pretends its all about social stability, the other that its all about rights. But the real fight is about whether or not homosexuality will have the same moral standing as heterosexuality in our society. If the society says - gays must be tolerated and have rights, but not access to marriage - then a mild stigma is preserved. If the society says, no, gays have access to marriage full stop, then opponents of gay marriage will increasingly find themselves marginalized as "anti-social".
What planet are you living on where the left doesn't argue that gays should be entirely accepted as full and equal participants in all aspects of social intercourse?
The only "dishonest" side in this argument is the one trying desperately to pretend that some social harm could possibly ensue from legalizing gay marriage ("everyone will gay marry and there'll be no children!!!!"--it's something you'd hesitate to write in a satire on the anti-gay-marriage campaign!) instead of being willing to just come out an own up to either their profound (and profoundly irrational) prejudice or their self-loathing rooted in their own sexual insecurity (like Charles, who is clearly 100% gay).
Charles wrote: “Do you understand that homosexual acts were a crime until Lawrence v. Texas? Read Scalia's dissent in that case if you think I am the only one concerned about this issue.”
Lawrence v. Texas upheld Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). In Bowers the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia law that criminalized any act of sodomy, even between a married heterosexual couple!
Anyone interested in learning how some states applied such universal anti-sodomy laws showed doa web search on “Jorge Lopes sodomy.” The state of Rhode Island had charged Lopes with first degree sexual assault of a woman. As part of his defense Lopes contended that all of the acts were consensual, including an act of oral-genital sex and an act of anal-genital sex. When the prosecutor realized that he was losing his case he asked the judge for a directed verdict of consensual sodomy. He got it and Lopes got a ten year sentence. It may have been a suspended sentence but Lopes got marked as a “sex offender.”
Lopes lost his appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Fortunately, Rhode Island has had the good sense to repeal this law.
Wait you guys. We've all misunderstood Charles' point.
He is seeking merely to demonstrate Nate's headline -
"Arguments Against Gay Marriage Literally Stop Making Sense"
Just congratulate him on a job well done, and let's move on.
A Gay Man in Deep Denial writes:
How is THE LITERAL END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT a pretty thin "utilitarian" objection?
Because there is no possible way that legalizing gay marriage can lead to "the literal end of human civilization as we know it." Only a man who thinks that being straight means fighting a daily battle to force yourself not to be gay could believe such a preposterous notion.
Charles,
Scientists project that the sun can only sustain life on this planet for another 3-4 billion years, so we're all pretty much doomed anyway.
Charles: You do realize that by agreeing with me you just committed yourself to the most ridiculous position imaginable, right? You're suggesting that public policy should be designed to force people to live a lie. Furthermore, you seem to actually think its working. I'm sad for you. Seriously.
Lawrence v. Texas *overturned* Bowers v. Hardwick. Sorry!!!
We'll avoid the partisan attacks, and just respond to some questions highlighted, as well as some general commentary.
1. In regards to the "Small % of bisexual men and women", I'd highlight recent surveys from the US, of the total population
Men
1.8 % bisexual
2.3% homosexual
Women
1.3% homosexual
2.8% bisexual
This equates well with a recent government survey saying about 4-5% are homosexual or bisexual (openly).
2. The General question here for the voter is "How do you feel about this degree of social change, versus the individual rights/freedoms of the people involved" and "What are the consequences of NOT having this social change." And, it's very much a subjective question. Different people will evaluate the positives and negatives differently. And a consensus will be based on Democracy.
Perhaps the best current day comparison to gay marriage is Polygamy. On the surface, equally consenting adults should have the right to engage in whatever relationship they want. However, Polygamy (on a historical basis) on reasonable scale has signifigant social effects, notably imparing women's rights, and creating a large number of "unwanted" teenage men to be thrown out into the world. Not quite "stable" societally.
Will Gay Marriage be nearly as destabilizing societally? Personally, I doubt it, if for no other reason than the relativitally low proportion of homosexuals in America. But, others may think differently.
3. Lastly, in regards to subreplacement fertility, I hope Nate brings this topic up. Luckily the US is at Replacement levels...but much of the World is not. This will likely be THE defining issue of the 21st century. Sub-Replacement Fertility in Japan, China, Russia, and Germany will SEVERELY impare the long term growth and stability of these countries. Worse, the common replacement to this, Immigration, may not work, as these countries tend to be rather unfriendly towards immigrants..
"On the other hand, proponents pretend that this is all about their private rights, and that this won't constrain the broader society at all. That's no true either - our public norms are in many ways shared norms. They are propagated in schools, on TV, in public discussion. Hold outs are stigamtized. Gay marriage proponents want not just marriage, but the weight of the culture on their side."
The same could be said of the disagreement over civil rights in the 50s/60s. And you're right, it's not just about private rights, it is about societal norms. And no, the world didn't end when society accepted non-whites as equals, despite stigmatizing those who were against it.
Pat:
Careful pointed any of those facts out, or you will be called a self-hating homosexual ...
The only way you can assume legalizing gay marriage will lead to a decline in birth rate is if you believe it's acceptable to force gay people to live in straight relationships for the sole benefit of creating more children, AND that this is both a common and acceptable practice today.
This strikes me as a pretty cruel way of approaching the problem.
Regardless of the deep psychological injury it can cause to the person in question, the ripple effect of damage can effect the spouse, the kids, their office, their congregation... you name it. The social repercussions can be far more devastating than if they hadn't felt pressured to lie in the first place. (Larry Craig, anyone? Ted Haggard?)
Saying this is an acceptable practice purely to artificially create children seems like a remarkably myopic way to approach the problem.
Dorian:
For every "Larry Craig" or "Ted Haggard" who ultimately did not keep it in their pants, there are plenty more who learn to accept their heterosexual marriage and family. I hesitated to bring this up before, but thre are successful outreach programs for homosexuals to actually change their orientation as well.
Wow. Inouye is trying to strip the Franken amendment out that prevents the Govn't to do business with contractors that prevent employees from suing if they are raped.
Call that bozo. Let him know what you think.
Phone: 202-224-3934
Fax: 202-224-6747
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html
Matt:
A replacement birth rate of 1.4 (assuming no change down the road) would take 210 years. Here's the math:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4952426
liberal_defender_of_freedom:
What does that have to do with the topic?
Liberal,
1. You're off topic.
2. Employees can already sue contractors if they're raped. Criminal misconduct isn't covered by arbitration clauses. In the case you're referring to, the courts already ruled, she can sue KBR.
If gay people are allowed to marry, then everyone else will stop getting married for fear people will think they're gay. This is exactly the sort of excuse straight guys have been looking for for years!
--Greg :-)
Hi, Greg :-)
Have you read ANY of my posts above?
Charles:
Only if you accept the notion that homosexuality is purely defined by behavior, a lifestyle, etc. And not an actual pre-defined orientation.
If you don't come to the table with that presupposition, then the outreach programs are actually quite damaging and ultimately just creating more Ted Haggard's.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these programs create 99 "normal" heterosexual relationships for every 1 incredibly damaging one. Then a utilitarian approach would be asking whether or not that setup is still more ultimately damaging than just letting gay people be gay in the first place. And then the argument comes down to your personal belief in the perceived "wrongness" of homosexuality, and now we've substituted an objective argument (birth rate) for a subjective one.
It seems that a lot of this debate ultimately comes down to circular arguments (from either side) about the nature of homosexuality. (Innate vs. behavioral.) And this seems to be strongly correlated to religiosity, generational considerations, culture, etc.
However, as Nate's pointed out copious times on the site, cultural attitudes towards this question have been moving towards acceptance for years now. The momentum is quite clear.
Dorian:
Do you believe it's acceptable to force fathers to live in their marriages when they are attracted to their under-age daughters?
Pat:
So, your argument is that some countries have negative population growth, and that they are doomed because they dislike immigrants. And because a strongly anti-gay society like Russia has a below-replacement birthrate, the U.S., with a growing population, should ban same-sex marriage?
More plausibly, if population decline is a problem, they should try to be more like us, not the other way around.
I will be back after lunch to continue ...
Charles writes:
I hesitated to bring this up before, but thre are successful outreach programs for homosexuals to actually change their orientation as well.
Gosh, what a stunning surprise that you, Charles, of all people should be aware of such programs.
You poor sad bastard. Stop living a lie, accept yourself for who you are, and be gay--in both the old and the more recent senses of the word.
Charles:
I refuse to participate in slippery-slope arguments, as they're often a sign of rhetorical desperation.
For every "Larry Craig" or "Ted Haggard" who ultimately did not keep it in their pants, there are plenty more who learn to accept their heterosexual marriage and family.
But you are attempting to suggest that if gay marriage was legal, these people would suddenly be gay? So they're lying to their wives and family, having sex with women, and even in Haggard and Craig's case being openly against gay marriage, solely because gay marriage is currently not legal?
That's absolutely ridiculous, Charles. If you're deep in the closet, gay marriage being legal isn't suddenly going to make you turn against everybody in your life. I would note that in the states where it has become legal, there has been no mass exodus of husbands and wives to gay bars, to my knowledge.
I hesitated to bring this up before, but thre are successful outreach programs for homosexuals to actually change their orientation as well.
"Successful" is debatable. The general consensus of medical health professionals is that at best they are useless and at worst harmful.
Not to mention that there's rather ample anecdotal evidence. Exodus International was founded by five ex-gay men... three of whom are now ex-ex-gay men.
@Charles Sure, I read the entire thread before I posted my little joke. :-)
In all seriousness, gay people are too small a fraction of society to make any real difference in the reproductive rate. Likewise, while there may be a handful of people who change between gay and straight (not counting true bisexuals and not counting people who were just pretending), that seems to be too rare to be worth worrying about.
So, yeah, if everyone became gay, then the human race would die out, but that's also true if everyone became celibate. Not going to happen -- not by a mile -- silly thing to worry about.
Europe's population problems come from heterosexual couples deciding not to reproduce. Even if they turned all their gay people straight, they'd still have the same problem.
--Greg
Charles-
From your link:
"Changing this rate slightly higher will add hundreds or thousands of years to the process and any rate of 2.1 or higher will never reach this goal."
There is really no sense arguing with Charles because here's his chain of logic...
Life is precious; which means
The purpose of life is to create life; which means
Marriage exists to create life; which means
Marriages that don't create life should not be legal; which means
Practices in people that discourage the creation of life should also be made illegal; which means
Divorce, abortion, homosexuality (and its deviant offshoots of incest, pedophelia, polygamy and bestiality) should all be made illegal.
All this should be done in the name of protecting the creation of human life.
Now -- here's the part where I don't argue with Charles, but I do blow a hole in that entire frame of logic.
Gay people who desire to not have children will not have children whether they are married or not.
Straight people who desire to get married and not have children will continue to get married and not have children.
Charles - your ultimate goal is to outlaw homosexuality on the grounds that it endangers the human species. I don't necessarily believe that you hate gay people, but you do FEAR them because you contend that their marriages will endanger life on this planet. -- Keep in mind your wonky little argument on europe did not mention same sex couples as a cause for the problem.
Pat, it shouldn't have to come to a ruling on if she can sue or not.
A clause like that should not be included in contracts this Govn't deals in, period.
Now get back to trying to find a scientific reason as to why to limit a persons rights as a U.S. citizen.
OK, Charles, I'll accept your numbers as a starting point. I'm not sure how you get from 2.1 (replacement making up for mortality) to 2.33, but let's say 2.33 is right. According to the World Factbook, the world fertility rate is 2.58, well over your number.
Now, your argument, if I understand it, is that this 2.58 would drop below 2.33 if gay marriage was legalized worldwide. Let's further assume that not a single gay couple uses in vitro fertilization or surrogacy to have children. To reach that 2.33 would take a 10 percent reduction from 2.58. Essentially, this assumes that, if gay marriage were legalized worldwide, 10 percent of the world population would begin identifying as straight instead of gay.
After all, the gay people that exist now can't make up for this difference - under the assumptions we're using, they're already not having children. That's about 680,000,000 people - well more than twice the entire U.S. population - choosing to both eschew heterosexual relationships and not have any children via in vitro or surrogacy. That's just unrealistic.
Oh, and the numbers are even worse if you use 2.1. You'd need more than 18 percent of the world population to switch teams for that one.
Yoink,
I've always found that old stupid saw that opponents of gay marriage are actually self-loathing homosexuals to be evidence of self-loathing on the part of the commentator. But that's neither here nor there.
As to the substance of your comment, of course the left wants full social normalization of homosexuality, and finds the traditional moral objection to it - which are alive and well around the globe - mere prejudice. But the public arguments don't often make that point clearly or consistently. They tend to take a rights oriented "live and let live" point of view - i.e. "I'm gay, you oppose homosexuality", we can coexist. This won't effect what your children are taught, or what your church is allowed to teach, or whether your photography business has to take photos of my gay wedding, and so forth. But that is all bull. The end is to make opposition to homosexuality just like racism - i.e., socially unacceptable, impossible for a small business person, and even something churches can't get away with without loosing their tax exempt status. The more robust agenda is usually denied.
Upshot - there is no moral neutrality in this debate. Each side wants to render the moral position of the other unacceptable.
Employees can already sue contractors if they're raped. Criminal misconduct isn't covered by arbitration clauses. In the case you're referring to, the courts already ruled, she can sue KBR.
The appeals court agreed in a 2-1 decision that her complaints did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement she signed, not that she had a general right to sue them.
Article
A lower court found Jones allegations of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision of employees and false imprisonment did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause of the contract she signed. Two of the judges from the federal appeals court agreed, with one dissenting.
The Franken Amendment would remove funding from any contractor who put assault and battery under an arbitration clause. The court decision was two weeks before the amendment was introduced - that was the point. Here's an excerpt from the text:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
You'll note that the bolded portion is essentially exactly what was decided was not in her arbitration clause.
* 10 percent of the world population would begin identifying as gay instead of straight. Sorry.
I should add, then, that even if every single person in North America stopped having children the world fertility rate would still cause population growth.
@jeff Is it really a secret that the ultimate goal of the gay rights movement is to get absolute equality for gay people? Yes, it's a logical conclusion that once the marriage fight is won, the next big battle will be to attack the tax exemptions of overtly homophobic groups.
Charles, I respectfully suggest that you leave this thread and do not return until you have real arguments that
1. do not make stupid comparisons (ie. gay people marrying, which takes away no one's rights, to murder, which takes away rights)
2. do not apply equally to non-gay couples (infertile, childfree)
3. do not rely on "reorientation" programs, which don't work
4. don't pretend to predict the end of human civilization
Basically, what you're saying is a, that no gay people want children, and b, that gay marriage is just so attractive that no-one would enter a straight marriage if a gay one was available to them. If you really think that, I suggest you admit to yourself that you are gay and work for your rights instead of against them.
/out
Worst. Thread. Ever.
I don't think the anti-same-sex-marriage people are even trying anymore. As Nate points out, "Arguments Against Gay Marriage Literally Stop Making Sense". As if they ever did.
It's the end of civilization if same sex unions are legal? Really? Civilization must be awfully fragile then.
Maybe it's all part of God's plan. The world was created for the sole purpose of one day bringing about legal same-sex marriages. Ever think of that? After all, once civilization collapses, the Rapture can come, and we'll all live in bliss forever. Simple math there.
Disprove that, Charles.
I want to address the education of children issue. It's probably slightly disingenuous to think that marriage equality would have NO effect on eduction. Surely children, especially high-school age, are taught about current events, the law, human sexuality etc.
Straight children are not, however, flowers that will wilt at the first mention of gay people. Gay children, OTOH, desperately need to hear that they are equal citizens deserving of love and happiness like anyone else. Gay kids NEED and DESERVE to hear pretty much exactly what the right-wing is terrified of.
Charles,
Can you explain why gay marriage will reduce the birth rate from 2.3 to 1.3? This would mean that nearly half of women would suddenly stop giving birth which is quite an extreme assumption. The birth rate really wouldn't decline much if any by gay marriage. Yes it is possible that more bisexuals will be more likely to end up in same sex partnerships because of a decrease in stigma, but you are talking about a very small portion of the population that would never be able to decrease the birth rate by an extreme amount.
Jeff:
I agree with your basic premise, with one small technical caveat:
I think that the pro-homosexual-marriage side isn't so much trying to impose their "morality" on others, but arguing that the question is not a moral one to begin with.
Hi, Dorian,
I can speak only for myself. I disagree with you -
I think that the pro-homosexual-marriage side isn't so much trying to impose their "morality" on others, but arguing that the question is not a moral one to begin with.
I think it very much is a moral argument. It is immoral to engage in hatred, discrimination, and prejudice.
Shrinkers:
I think I'm trying to just give an objective framework to the "moral" arguments in the debate.
The anti-gay-marriage types are trying to assert that homosexual marriage is, itself, immoral. Thus, they assume anyone who's for it must think it's moral, and the debate comes down to a moral battle between the two sides. I was pointing out that this is not necessarily the case: this part of the debate is asymmetric on the moral question.
Conversely as you've pointed out, the pro-gay-marriage side may not think the actual marriage question is a moral debate. However, they think the second-order cause of the debate, a perceived hatred of homosexuals, is itself immoral. I couldn't speak to the anti-gay-marriage side, but I would surmise they would agree that *this* question comes down to a symmetrical moral argument.
What I'm trying to do is point out that the "marriage" question is really a red herring by either side. It's coming down to whether someone "approves" of homosexuality or not. And people argue backwards from that initial assumption, using ostensibly objective questions like marriage and birth rate to accomplish it.
However, as Nate's pointed out on the site before, polling on this particular question shows overwhelming and steady momentum towards acceptance in practically every region and demographic.
I'm back. If anyone else is still here with a pending question for me, let me know.
Dorian:
I agree that slippery-slope arguments are OFTEN a sign of rhetorical desperation, but that's not the case here. Considering that Justice Scalia made the same, exact legal point in his dissent from Lawrence v. Texas, it might behoove you to actually deal with this very REAL possibility. Of course, if you'd rather not, that's OK too. Just because you think we are "arguing backwards" from the desired result doesn't mean that we are wrong.
Rebecca:
Thanks for the "suggestions" but no thanks, I'll stay right here. Perhaps you are confusing me with Chris or someone else, because I don't think any of that is true.
I think the problem is that Charles lives somewhere where being openly gay is extremely uncommon. He watches news reports and episodes of Law and Order: SVU, and assumes that the stories about gay people in such things are the norm, rather than unusual occurrences.
My family in Ohio is similar. The majority of their exposure to the gay lifestyle is occasional news reports about gay pride parades that show men in drag parading around, and they believe that all gay men must walk around in 5 inch heels and Diana Ross wigs.
Charles is unable to see that news reports about pedophilia and people like Larry Craig are news reports BECAUSE they are unusual. The 99.5% of gay people who have healthy relationships are never in the news. It's the one guy who goes berserk because he's been a closeted gay man for 25 years and can't take the pressure anymore that makes the news, and Charles apparently assumes that most "straight" men are similarly closeted and unhappy and would parade around in high heels and wigs if only the law would let them!
Sorry Charles.
- 49% of marriages are not going to end up "gay" because of a law. Evolution (not God) has led to virtually every species overwhelmingly preferring to mate with the opposite sex for the very reason of procreation. Some species, though, do have instances where some members become homosexual, or even spontaneously change gender, in response to natural pressures.
- Babies are going to get made whether people are married or not.
- Population grows to fill the available resources, and when those resources are used up, nature takes care of things. As civilized humans, we are the first species with the ability to anticipate when our resources are going to be used up, and take active steps to reduce population growth ourselves before endemic war and disease reduces the population for us, or figure out a way to get more resources. That was the origin of the move from the hunter/gather lifestyle to agriculture. The Black Death wiped out 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of Europe at the time and people thought it was the end of the world. But do you know what happened? Those that survived had more resources and were therefore able to have larger families, and eventually, the population recovered. You are looking at things on a very short-term scale.
The point is, nature has ways of making sure this stuff gets taken care of, that no piddly law is going to circumvent. So calm down. There are lots of things that may destroy humanity (I can make you a list). Gay marriage isn't one of them.
Dorian -
I think you're right - the "real" question is whether one disapproves of same-sex relationships, or is indifferent, or accepting - and other locations on that continuum.
Positions on issues such as marriage, social acceptance, serving in the military, etc., are based on that one basic question. Various justifications - something, anything, other than the underlying principle itself - are concocted to support a pre-existing conclusion.
All else stems from an underlying assumption regarding the propriety of same-sex relationships, and the most serious illogic can be called upon to avoid admitting that bedrock assumption.
I think I actually agree with you here.
@Dorian A lot of us (Gay people) have thought for years (I'm 50) that most of our problem with society was the result of a big misunderstanding. Harvey Milk's genius was to argue that all we needed to do was come out and be ourselves and that, as more and more people realized the truth about us, our problems would go away.
People used to come out in their 30s or later. These days, it's high school -- college at the latest -- and some even come out in middle school. Straight kids form their views of homosexuals, more and more, from people they actually know. When told lies about us, they simply don't believe them.
When kids study this issue in 50 years, they're going to have a hard time understanding why it was ever an issue at all.
--Greg
How bout we just ban marriage for everyone?
@Pat
1) Heterosexual parents tend to prefer their children in heterosexual marriages.
So? My mom, and I love her dearly, prefers a lot of stuff she can go get bent on. :p Because I'm not my parents property.
Charles said...
Pat:
Less "grandchildren" are not just the concern of disappointed grandparents. Have you ever heard of sub-replacement fertility problems? Europe right now is facing a disaster in the making:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
OMG OMG OMG the world is running out of people! Oh wait, no it isn't, if anything we are getting close to having too damn many of them.
Setting aside the inanity of that arguement, your arguement is self-defeating in that denying women in a same-sex couple the same legal tools for parenting wrapped in state marriage is actively discouraging them from procreation.
No, there isn't actually a logic arguement to be made for a policy that also comes even remotely close to repecting personal liberty and choices. Or are you good with force fertile copulation? o_O
P.S. Hey, since we are visiting Crazy Town anyway how about this? I sponser a gay couple (or a couple that's getting married that too damn old to have kids). I've got 4 kids, I alone should be able to sponsor about 0.9 couples ((4 - 2.1)/2.1). :D
Greg Hullender:
Do you believe that churches should be forced to "marry" same-sex couples?
@Greg Hullender
I think you're correct. On a related issue - I'm in my 50's, and I have two grandchildren under the age of 6. They will grow up in a world that has always had at least one black president. They'll wonder why this was ever even an issue.
Similarly, I suspect they'll be shocked to some day learn that same-sex marriages once were not permitted, or that gays were discriminated against and stigmatized to the extent that we have all lived through.
I'm very happily straight myself, but I see no justification for treating anyone differently because of sexual orientation. It's a stupid prejudice, and there's no excuse for it.
juvanya:
If we end up just banning marriage for everyone, will you at least agree that impacts straight couples who want to get married in Texas?
Dwight:
Your four kids are already making up for another HETEROSEXUAL couple refusing to have children. Nice try though ; )
Charles:
I will consider the "churches will be forced to accept homosexuality or lose their tax-exempt status" argument if you can cite how that argument would go, and provide historical reference of parallel situations in the past.
Many churches still don't accept female ministers. Many churches still cater only to one race. One could argue that the very act of *having* a denomination -- an implicit rejection of those of others faiths -- is similarly exclusionary.
None of these things impinge on their tax-exempt status. Why would a church refusing to perform homosexual marriages lead to any other result? The fear is baseless.
Charles,
Churches being forced to marry same sex couples is not something that gay rights activists are fighting for and would ever win. This debate is only about the legal form of marriage, not the religious one. Churches will continue to be free to allow and not allow whoever they want to be married by them.
Charles needs a d*ck up his a$$! Seriously!
shrinkers:
Once the same-sex marriage issue is over, then your grandchildren can finally marry your great-grandchildren and live happily ever after!
Ryan, Dorian -
Charles knows that about churches. He's just making stuff up now.
Greg Hullender:
Do you believe that churches should be forced to "marry" same-sex couples (assuming a perfect world with you as Queen)?
Charles -
You're actually doing a parody thing, right? A Steven Colbert-type schtick? It's pretty funny, actually :) but I don't think many people are getting the joke. You get thumbs-up from me though! Your satire of rightwing crazies is priceless!
Charles:
It has never ever been a question of what churches are forced to do. The Constitutional freedom of religion protects religious organizations from being forced to do anything. The argument for legalization of same-sex marriage is, in fact, an argument for freedom of religion. It is only your religion that says that homosexuality is wrong. Mine does not. By preventing a person of my faith from getting married based upon the tenets of your faith, you have used the government to endorse your religion and infringe upon the free exercise of mine. Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't perform them in your home or church. But, you don't have the right to reach into my home and my church and impose those values on me.
We're not talking about beliefs and personal moral judgments here. We're talking about public policy and government. Your personal beliefs are not a proper grounds on which to set such policy.
Dwight:
Your four kids are already making up for another HETEROSEXUAL couple refusing to have children. Nice try though ; )
Why? Who gets to allocate it that way? You? No, I'm picking. That hetrosexual couple they like the boy on girl action. They can damn well have their own kids. The world needs saving! PULL OFF THAT RAINCOAT 'N GITER DONE!
They are failing to live up to their good faith promise when they married to make like rabbits. I'm pretty sure it's in those vows somewhere....
@Charles
"Do you believe that churches should be forced to "marry" same-sex couples?"
Do you believe that churches should be forced to "marry" opposite-sex couples? I can assure you there are plenty of churches/synagogues/mosques/whatever that already do turn couples down for various reasons already.
My friend who was recently married had to pass his fiance's rabbi's jewishness test. He only passed cause she covered for him when he didn't have a clue what he was supposed to say. Would have been denied otherwise for not being jewish enough.
@charles I'm willing to give churches a pass on that. I wouldn't even require them to accept gay people as members. After all, churches don't have to accept black people as members either, although they do give up their tax exemption when they made that decision.
Just A Student:
Perhaps you missed Greg Hullender's post (above) that the next big battle will be to attack the tax exemptions? That's called "force" too.
Post a Comment