Posted by Tina
IMPORTANT UPDATE: “Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters: “The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/family-of-alleged-romney-bullying-victim-says-portrayal-is-factually-incorrect
The sensational news of the day is that Mitt Romney was a bit of a crazy man in High School. He was known for his many gags and pranks. He apparently still enjoys being a prankster, but should he be judged today for something he did as a teenager.
Mail Online has full details that include holding down a fellow student, taunting him and cutting his hair, which had been bleached and styled over the summer, using scissors.
This was a thoughtless juvenile act.
Today Mitt Romney issued an apology:
“Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” Romney said in a live radio interview with Fox News Channel personality Brian Kilmeade. Romney added: “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.”
In 1965 there was no such thing as an acknowledged “gay community”. The term “in the closet” also didn’t exist in the main stream lexicon. Therefore, In the context of the times, it is doubtful Mitt Romney and his friends targeted this boy for being gay. It is just as possible that he was targeted because he was new to the school, or because he dressed or spoke differently from the other boys at the school. One thing is certain, e wasn’t the first boy, nor would he be the last, to suffer hazing in school.
A few days ago Joe Biden made a bumbling, or calculated, gaff stating that he was in favor of gay marriage. Obama suddenly found himself in a bit of a sticky wicket. This issue tends to divide the black vote, a problem reflected in the amendment vote yesterday in North Carolina that affirms marriage as between one man and one woman. Today we learn that some gays and progressives have been witholding campaign donations from Obama because they felt slighted by his squishy stances. We also were treated to the newly evolved position of the President. NPR referred to it as a “change of pace” for the President.
If we look closely we discover that Obama’s pretty comments didn’t offer anything more than his personal endorsement; he didn’t indicate that gay marriage would become a federal priority. In fact he restated a former position that it was a states rights issue. This reconfiguration in the evolution process was, therefore, somewhat pretentious.
Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the story about Mitt Romney’s high school high jinks was shoved into the headlines today.
Does the President’s new position mean he solidly stands for gay marriage or is he just a power hungry political animal who will change his position in a heartbeat for cash and/or votes?
And what about Romney? Is this high school prank an indication of Mitt Romney’s ideals and character today?
It’s important to note that the North Carolina vote not only bans same-sex marriage, but also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is just cruel, in my opinion. Even most conservatives say that they are in favor of gay couples having access to civil unions. But North Carolina Republicans either did not understand this part of the law before voting on it, or they thought even civil unions were too much.
I don’t think we should judge Mitt Romney based on what he did in college. However, since many on the right have tried to judge Obama for his college associations, this defense from the right does come across as somewhat hypocritical. Nevertheless, I think both candidates should be judged based on their policies and actions today.
I think Obama has privately supported same-sex marriage for a while, but was worried about saying it in public. While I have always wanted him to just “come out” and support it, I think his actions have spoken louder than words. His repeal of DADT and his refusal to defend DOMA in court because of it’s unconstitutional nature have indicated a very progressive stance on gay rights. I am very happy that he is now the first president to publicly announce support for gay marriage. This is still a contentious issue, and this was a bold move for him in an election year.
By the way, saw this funny comment going around on Facebook:
“Rush Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday, ‘We’ve arrived at a point where the president of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage.’
His first, second, third and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.”
If he was 14 or 4, if ol Mitt misbehaved, then the democrat operatives hope to discover it and use to demonstrate his character today. This stupidity for the sake of an election makes me want to puke.
Trying to use what Romney may have done 40 years ago when he was still a child screams DESPERATE!!
More important is what happened in college when he was an adult. But, of course, Obama refuses to release his college records, weve seen pictures of him smoking the dope and in his own book heard he was really into it and attended a church for 20 years where the preacher damned America.
Hummm, does the action of a 15 year old or a 35 year old reveal the type of man he is today?
The DNC must really be running scared.
“A man can fail many times, but he isn’t a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.” ~John Burroughs
Interesting. The WaPo alone has dedicated 5,400 words to Mitt Romney’s high-school pranks. How much space has the lame stream dedicated to Obama’s cocaine abuse, dog eating, and girl bullying as expounded in his auto-biography “Dreams From My Father”?
You guessed it — zip, zilch, zero.
Betsy Lauber, one of John Laubers three sisters: “The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”
As for the juvenile snickers over Rush Limbaugh’s marriages, it appears that in each case the divorces were his former wives’ idea, not his.
At least he kept trying. Looks like he finally got one to stick.
http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/p/rushlimbaugh.htm
Obama is trying to pander to certain voters and get the usual slobbering press coverage with his contrived “evolution” narrative, but gays are none to happy about his phony conversion and are calling it “a half-assed, cowardly cop-out” —
http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement
I think the only gaffe Biden made was stealing Obama’s thunder. I think Obama made a calculated move and Biden screwed it up by spilling the beans. I suspect they were going to wait until the convention and announce this in a speech but because of Biden’s big mouth Obama had to get out in front of it.
As usual, this does not matter. Personally I do not care if gay people get married so once again we are talking about things that do not make America a better place to live in. What I would like the President to talk about is jobs and the economy. Same with the House and Senate.
Instead these entities are all engaged in big culture wars which make good press for the media but it does nothing to improve the economy.
Is his past important?
It depends on whether you like him or not. If you like him, his past does not matter. If you do not like him, then no matter what he has done, or when he has done it, it is a personal failing.
If Obama had done this . . .
Observer: My reaction is, I think it’s absurd for either side to go there! It’s wrong. It’s just stupid muck-raking and it has no bearing on this race. However, you raised a good point, what if Obama had done similar pranks as a teen – how would he have been treated by the same mainstream news people who think it is so important? And the answer is in!
The liberal MSM has said nothing! What we have is a clear double standard by liberals. Oh, shock, shock. Of course this is typical behavior for the MSM, we’re not surprised. I am a bit surprised that you didn’t notice this discrepancy? You need to read PS more often. We’ll keep you up to speed with information that smart voters need to know. -Jack
Re Observer’s: “If Obama had done this . . . ”
Obviously Observer does not observe to well. Obama abused cocaine, bullied a girl, and ate a dog.
Try reading Obama’s auto-biography “Dreams From My Father” and then ask yourself if it is important enough for the lame stream media to completely ignore while focusing on Romney’s high school pranks and vacations with his dog.
Now it turns out that as usual the AP is being less than honest (totally full of $%#@) about Romney but Obama still abused a girl while in school. Sounds like Obama committed a hate crime by singling that girl out because she was a dark black person as opposed to himself and that Zimmerman fellow. I think I am getting the hang of spotting hate crimes. Maybe I can get a job with the MSM or dare I hope the UN.
You know, if Obama had hung out with known terrorist, Bill Ayers, when he was a teenager, someone in the media would still be making a stink about it.
If Obama had eaten a dog when he was a child, you can bet someone would STILL be talking about it!
Observer, yep, someone would, but not the mainstream media. However Obama wasn’t a teenager when he was hanging out with a former terrorist or when he had bigoted, leftist for a Minister for 10 years.
“There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.” (Note: Obama was only 8 years when Ayers was setting off bombs)
Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.”
Is this worthy of any mention? Only if you are concerned about being fair and balanced.
Pie Guevara:
“Interesting. The WaPo alone has dedicated 5,400 words to Mitt Romney’s high-school pranks. How much space has the lame stream dedicated to Obama’s cocaine abuse, dog eating, and girl bullying as expounded in his auto-biography “Dreams From My Father”?”
Wow. You really don’t see the difference between accusations of wrongdoing that come to light because of a third party, and admissions of wrongdoing that come straight from the horse’s mouth?
“As for the juvenile snickers over Rush Limbaugh’s marriages, it appears that in each case the divorces were his former wives’ idea, not his.”
How very shocking. Why on earth would anyone want to divorce such a lovely…OK, sorry, I can’t even finish that one.
But who initiated the divorces is irrelevant. The fact is that Rush Limbaugh is in a marriage that is not at all “traditional.” He has benefited from a change in the law–namely, no-fault divorce–that many Republicans say has “weakened the institution of marriage.” And now he’s saying, “I got mine–screw the rest of you,” because that is his central motto when it comes to every aspect of politics.
Perhaps an even better example to use would be Newt Gingrich, who is currently married to a woman he was sleeping with while he was still married to his…was it third wife? I’ve lost track. And yet he too has the nerve to lecture about “family values,” and pretend that gays pose a bigger threat to marriage than everything he’s done to the institution. Despicable.
Princess:
“As usual, this does not matter. Personally I do not care if gay people get married so once again we are talking about things that do not make America a better place to live in.”
I strongly disagree; legalizing gay marriage would definitely make America a better place to live in, not only for gays, but for all who care about justice and equality. Even David Blankenhorn, a key supporter of Prop. 8, admitted in court that “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2010/01/27/prop-8-trial-defendant-witness-david-blankenhorn-withers-under-boies-questioning/
We should be focusing on the economy, but that doesn’t mean other important American struggles should be dismissed.
Chris, for what its worth, I don’t think gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. However, if this nation eventually accepts gay marriage, those citizens who’s background/culture and religion oppose such unions will likely be offended to some degree, some more than others and they could see it as an encroachment on their turf by the State. Muslims will be extremely offended because the Koran is quite specific about this. If it happens it’s not going to change anything in my life, nor for 99% of us, but their could be unintended consequences and we should all be aware of that possibility.
Chris, your latest incoherent screed falls way short of WaPo’s 5,400 words (and your usual verbose ramble). You need to work on that.
Jack, personally I think the government should get completely out of the marriage sanctioning business. A simple legal contract can take care of all the pertinent issues for any partnership.
If some perverted jackass wants to “marry” their dog and can find a church stupid and twisted enough to do it, what the hell do I care? I just don’t want the government to sanction that any more than I expect the government to sanction heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamous unions and legally define it as “marriage”.
I have no doubt that in the not too distant future some progressive dork (like Chris) will be demanding that it is not fair for the government to marginalize inter-species, human-inanimate-object, or pedophile-child “marriage”.
I can here the 2052 version of Chris right now —
“I strongly disagree; legalizing inter-species marriage would definitely make America a better place to live in, not only for all species, but for all who care about justice and equality.”
Baaaaaaaaaah humbuggery!
“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda.”
Well, that’s sad. Cause the other five members of the “dog pack” remember it vividly, and are properly ashamed.
Why would the family want to disown the poor kid’s experience?
As for that “pack of dogs” … well … boys will be boys, and until and unless we might possibly drive everything possessed of a penis from public life (and who knows, it may yet someday be accomplished) … we WILL enact and implement that Volker Rule.
Speaking of Islam, our local paragon of tolerance and virtue, Chris, loves to defend it and has gone as far as to attack people who warn against Muslims and sharia by calling them knuckle-dragging bigots. (Well, maybe just bigots and the knuckle-dragging part was implied.)
Which seems a bit ironic since Islam prescribes death for homosexuals, quite often by tying them up in a bag and throwing them off a cliff. (If the first toss doesn’t do it, rinse and repeat.) In Muslim countries under Islamic law this is still practiced. Imams in the US seek to make US law more sharia compliant. Oh yeah, now there is a GREAT idea, right Chris? God, I love progressives!
In North Carolina those despicable, knuckle-dragging bigots do not wish to execute homosexuals, invade their bedrooms, or tell them what to do. They simply passed a law saying that the legal definition of “marriage” is between one man and one woman.
The horror, the horror!
Re Chris’: “Wow. You really don’t see the difference between accusations of wrongdoing that come to light because of a third party, and admissions of wrongdoing that come straight from the horse’s mouth?”
Huh? 1) The “third party” wasn’t even there when the supposed incident occurred yet you take it as fact! 2)How is the admissions of wrong coming straight from the horse’s ass materially different that wrongdoing alleged by someone who didn’t even witness the alleged wrongdoing?
In any case Romney apologized for any past prank transgressions, even if they didn’t really happen. (Romney says he does not remember the hair shaving incident, maybe he really does not remember because it never really happened! Possible.)
Has Obama ever apologized for being a dog eating, girl bullying coke whore supporting Mexican drug lords with his habit? Heck, he won’t even apologize for his administration arming Mexican drug cartel dirt bags and the wholesale slaughter that has resulted from it.
Moreover, has Obama apologized for being an anti-gay-marriage, knuckle-dragging, homophobic bigot prior to his very recent and remarkable “evolution”?
Coherency, Chris, coherency.
Re Chris’: “But who initiated the divorces is irrelevant.”
Huh? What nonsense. It seems fairly clear that Rush did not seek divorce in each case, but when presented with it decided to concede to his former wives wishes and not make an issue out of it.
The marriage destroying BASTARD!
Coherency, Chris, coherency. Try it sometime, not only you might find it refreshing, I sure as hell would.
So lets see…if we do accept that marriage is between any who “love” each other, and if we accept that either a man or woman can be a wife or a husband, and if we accept that the very words man and woman no longer have any meaning and family is anything you say it is…and if we just decide nothing adverse will happen. Will our society remain civil. Will the kids be okay? Generation after generation and in most circumstances? Really?
We’ve done quite a bit of damage already in my view. Easy sex, easy divorce, everybody out of the closet, doin it in the park, artificial insemination that produces eight babies for a single mother that already has five or six kids…ANYTHING GOES MAN…I’M OK…YOU’RE OK…LIFE…it’s whatever you want. No responsibility…no liability…nothing owed to the children you produce as you go about getting having it all!
One nut bag with a few followers has decided that parents should be able to “abort” their toddlers because until the age of five they are not really sentient beings anyway. If uber selfish adults should indulge in this brave new world idea what word will we alter in order to describe this act? Will the word kill apply? Probably not. Of course murder is definitely out…that would defeat the entire purpose! Let’s see, thinking, thinking. How about eliminate…nah…sounds a bit too mafia! What about unbirth…the unbirthing process…or better yet, rub out…or erase? Erase could be stretched to include this act since the, um…thingy…would no longer be visable in ones life.
Not only are we losing the language we are losing traditions that have been the cornerstones of western civil society for more than a few centuries. If you don’t think the destruction of the word marriage…the meaning of marriage…will have an adverse effect on our society, think again. We have already done irreperable damage to countless lives and our society by making divorce easy, by failing to hold ourselves responsible when creating new life, by denying children a relationship with their fathers, by putting our fanciful selfish needs ahead of these young lives. We only need look at the condition of our society since the sixties. The destruction is particular obvious in the black and poor communities where those influences, plus loss of religious faith and the welfare state have created growing numbers of lost lives to illiteracy, drug use, gangs, high incarceration rates for men, and countless single mothers.
The changes we made all seemed very resonable at the time. Our justifications were backed up by marriage specialists and pop psychology, by sex guru’s and new age ideas and what a party, right?
Were we not just moments ago reflecting upon those traditions and values that made America great? If I wanted America to fail I’d have to include changing the meanings of words. It takes you to a place you never expected to go. When Marriage was suddenly a temporary condition instead of a lifelong commitment to family we were certain that it wouldn’t change a thing. We were certain because we were only thinking selfishly and we wanted an easy answer to life’s problems.
One last thing. You don’t have to have led a perfect life to recognize sound principles and values. It also doesn’t take a total screw up to recognize when deviations from those principles and values create an abundance of broken and shattered lives…and less than civil society. In some American neighborhoods (Chicago) they are fast sneaking up on barbarism.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Good comments Pie…right on as usual.
Re Chris’:”But North Carolina Republicans either did not understand this part of the law before voting on it, or they thought even civil unions were too much.”
What planet do you come from anyway? Certainly not earth. The legislation would have never passed with a straight Republican vote. 61% of voters in NC voted for Amendment 1.
In North Carolina Republicans voters are a minority. The stats are (approximately)
45% Democratic Party
31% Republican Party
21% Undeclared or other
So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it. This was NOT a Republican issue passed by Republicans, although I completely understand your need to frame it that way, Chris.
No. I think I wrapped this one up.
Libby you are one sick female.
Re observer’s: “You know, if Obama had hung out with known terrorist, Bill Ayers, when he was a teenager, someone in the media would still be making a stink about it.
If Obama had eaten a dog when he was a child, you can bet someone would STILL be talking about it!”
I am not quite sure what observer’s point here is, but I’ll respond anyway.
Obama eating dog is nothing more than an auto-farcical mock that stemmed from lame stream attention over Romney’s dog vacation which, in turn, inspired political focus groups like “Dogs Against Romney”.
I find it hilarious that the folks who dog Romney give Obama a pass for eating one. Maybe you don’t. Maybe it is just me and I simply have a twisted sense of humor. I also find that particular contortion wonderfully incredible but not unexpected. Such is the state of journalism and what Democratic Party politics has degenerated into. I don’t blame Democrats and the lame stream which is the bag for Obama, he certainly does not have a much of a record to run on.
Evidently “observer” does not think it important that Obama’s political career was launched by self avowed terrorist Bill Ayers. Correct me if I am wrong. Judging from the attention paid by the lame stream media on this simple fact, it must not be important at all. Silly me!
Honestly, this has to be the weirdest election cycle I have ever witnessed in my short time on this planet. I wish I could live 100 more years just to see how much more it can devolve.
By the way, I like my dog slow smoked on a Texas barbecue. It comes out nice and tender. How do you like yours?
Jack: “Chris, for what its worth, I don’t think gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage.”
Good on you, Jack.
“However, if this nation eventually accepts gay marriage, those citizens who’s background/culture and religion oppose such unions will likely be offended to some degree, some more than others and they could see it as an encroachment on their turf by the State. Muslims will be extremely offended because the Koran is quite specific about this. If it happens it’s not going to change anything in my life, nor for 99% of us, but their could be unintended consequences and we should all be aware of that possibility.”
I find this argument odd; it almost sounds like you’re saying that we should make our laws align with Sharia law, but that can’t be right.
Maybe you’re not saying this is a reason we should not allow gay marriage, just a possible consequence we should be worried about. Even then, I’m not convinced. Our country does a lot of things that go against the Quran, and there hasn’t been massive outrage by Muslim citizens in the U.S. (They’re a quiet people in this country, politically speaking; maybe because many of them they’ve seen the worst and are just grateful to be here.) Islamic terrorists already think we are godless infidels worthy of destruction, and that isn’t going to change.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic about Muslim citizens because almost all of the Muslim Americans I know are progressive college students who support gay marriage. They’re probably not representative of where most American Muslims stand right now, but I think they are representative of the next generation.
Tina: “So lets see…if we do accept that marriage is between any who “love” each other,”
I’m not asking you to accept that
“and if we accept that either a man or woman can be a wife or a husband,”
Or that
“and if we accept that the very words man and woman no longer have any meaning”
Or that
“and family is anything you say it is…”
Or that
“and if we just decide nothing adverse will happen.”
Or that. Wow, five strawman arguments in one sentence! Were you shooting for a new personal record?
“Will our society remain civil.”
“Remain?” Our society isn’t civil now, especially when the topic of gay marriage is brought up.
“Will the kids be okay?”
Why don’t you ask some of the kids of same-sex married couples?
“Not only are we losing the language we are losing traditions that have been the cornerstones of western civil society for more than a few centuries. If you don’t think the destruction of the word marriage…the meaning of marriage…will have an adverse effect on our society, think again.”
Tina, allowing same-sex couples to enter into the marriage contract–which, in the United States, is already mostly gender-neutral, since with few exceptions such as the presumption of paternity, it gives the man and woman the exact same rights, responsibilities and benefits–is a MODEST change compared to these historical changes:
1) The shift from polygyny (one man married to many women) as the ideal in Western cultures, to polygyny being viewed as totally immoral, even criminal, with monogomy becoming the new ideal
2) The shift from wives being viewed as the legal property of their husbands, to being viewed as full equals in a marriage
3) The shift from marriage being viewed as primarily an economic arrangement, to marriage being viewed as primarily about romantic love and personal commitment.
All of these are, in my opinion, much bigger “redefinitions” of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry. And you can see how each one of these changes sort of led to the other. When men no longer took on many wives, male power and privilege was reduced. As women gain greater power and equality, they have more freedom in who to marry, thus marriage becomes more tied up with romantic love. This in turn leads to our society’s ability to even contemplate same-sex marriage; since men and women are now viewed as equals, and since we place a historically unusual value on romantic love, we can see how romantic love between two people of the same gender can become seen as acceptable, even valuable, and the old reasons for disallowing it are becoming ever more unconvincing.
Of course, I have grossly simplified these issues, which are extremely complicated and differ based on culture and historical periods. But my point is that, contrary to the claims of many opponents of SSM, marriage has certainly NOT always meant one thing and one thing only. The way people practice marriage today in the U.S. is very different from how it was practiced 2000 years ago in the Middle East. It is also very different from how it was practiced 100 years ago in the U.S. These differences are not surface details; they are FUNDAMENTAL differences, so much so that one might argue that the definition of marriage has been changed greatly over time.
But the changes I outlined above are undeniably positive ones. It is a good thing that men and women are considered equal in a marriage, and that women have more choice in who they get to marry. This wasn’t the case as recently as fifty years ago, when in most states, husbands could still legally rape their wives. The term “marital rape,” in fact, would have been seen as an oxymoron to most people in this generation. When marital rape laws were passed, many people were outraged, and argued that this would weaken marriage. They used appeals to tradition and religion to argue that men have always had unrestricted sexual access to their wives. You are using the same kind of bad arguments to fight against gay marriage today.
Gay marriage is another step in what I see not as a “redefinition” of marriage, but an evolution of it. Marriage has undeniably always been a strong, unifying force in society. I agree with conservatives who argue that it is the cornerstone of civilization. That said, it has also, throughout history, contained elements that are undeniably effed up, and served to create inequality. When you say “traditional marriage,” you seem to be only thinking of the good parts and ignoring the bad. Traditional marriage includes polygyny, it includes oppression of women, it includes legal marital rape, it includes child marriage, it includes arranged marriage, and it includes oppressive economic transactions that involved little choice in the matter for either party, but usually the woman had less choice. Let me be clear, a lot of this was due to uncontrollable economic factors of the time, so I’m not judging people for these practices or calling them evil. They had a lot of good reasons for organizing marriage this way. Those reasons don’t exist today in the United States, and it is worth asking if there are any good reasons left for us to keep gay people from getting married. People against SSM argue that there are, but they don’t seem to have a lot of evidence for it. Meanwhile, we know that a whole lot of people are experiencing real pain and suffering while we drag our feet on this issue.
“We have already done irreperable damage to countless lives and our society by making divorce easy,”
Tina, do you think Newt Gingrich and his past few wives should have been legally allowed to divorce? Why or why not?
Furthermore, do you think Newt Gingrich should have been legally allowed to marry Calista, whom we know he was having an affair with while still married to his first wife? Why or why not?
Divorce is never easy. But what you call “easy divorce laws” are, in my opinion, a good thing. People are more free because of these laws. Of course there have been consequences. Mo’ freedom, mo’ problems.
It should be noted, however, that even without “easy” divorce laws, Gingrich would have found his divorces much easier than the general population, because he has a lot more money and resources at his disposal than the general population. Strict divorce laws have been and always would be easy for rich people to get around, and would create an unequal system where the poor have to stick it out while the rich are able to get away with their digressions from “traditional marriage.”
Finally, Tina, you ask us to consider the possible negative effects of allowing gay marriage. But this practice has been legal in some states for over ten years, and in some countries longer than that. Shouldn’t some of these negative outcomes be manifesting by now? Why aren’t we seeing a destruction of the family in Massachusetts or Sweden? Why do these places actually have lower rates of divorce than many places which outlaw SSM?
No Chris, no embracing of Sharia law was intended. I am only pointing out the obvious, that most liberals seem quite concerned about cultural sensitivity until those cultural beliefs contradict one of their sacred beliefs.
Jack, “cultural sensitivity” doesn’t mean basing policy on tip-toeing around people’s religious beliefs. I don’t think allowing the consumption of pork to be legal is culturally insensitive to Jews, and I don’t think legalizing gay marriage would be culturally insensitive to Muslims. They might not like it, but they don’t have to like it. We’re a secular society, our laws will not be dictated based on religion, and all religions have to deal with that equally (though some take it harder than others).
And that would be my position as well.
Chris I will be responding to your long post as I can but I wanted to address the following and I include you Jack because it seemed you agree.
Chris (and Jack): “We’re a secular society, our laws will not be dictated based on religion…”
Hmmmm…too late! The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was/is “guided by” the Judeo/Christian religion.
I know a lot of our citizens don’t like it, and many may take it harder than others, but they will just have to deal with it.
Chris: “Wow, five strawman arguments in one sentence! Were you shooting for a new personal record?”
I know you don’t get it but I am being very serious and hoped to inspire serious discussion. You had that capability a few years back, as you mature you have gotten quite rigid in your willingness to consider other views.
Chris I know you are young. Our society has changed very little in your short life. I understand that you have no idea how much it will change by the time you have reached the age of sixty so I’m going to try to ignore your snide dismissal.
“Our society isn’t civil now, especially when the topic of gay marriage is brought up.”
Most of the incivility that I encounter comes from overly emotional and angry gay men who are incapable of having a sane discussion. they are output channels of hate and derision. They are unwilling to accept that others may have a different opinion.
“Why don’t you ask some of the kids of same-sex married couples?”
This one sentence shows that when responding to my honest entreaties for discussion you are on the same page as the angry gay men. You have no interest in understanding what I’m thinking much less caring about the things that could end up adversely affecting the lives of those kids and their kids, or our country. You lack the ability, it seems, to think beyond emotional concerns.
“All of these are, in my opinion, much bigger “redefinitions” of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry.
None of the changes listed change the basic nature of marriage or matrimony, the condition of maternity, that drives the necessity of marriage between one man and one woman. Were it not for the fact that we procreate there would be no reason for any of us to marry at all. Marriage is a specific word with specific meaning and purpose.
Back later…having trouble with home computer so depending on how it acts it could be tomorrow before I continue.
Tina, lol thats the problem with agreeing with Chris, I gotta be more specific or I am in trouble.
I’m only agreeing with Chris in this context, that if Muslims come to this county and they don’t agree with the will of the people on (pick a subject – we don’t beat our wives) then that’s just too bad.
I was just trying to point out that on one hand liberals play this cultural sensitivity card, but when it goes against one of their favorite issues (gay marriage)…it’s screw cultural sensitivities! And basically that is what Chris said and I agree…it another case of when in Rome….that kind of thing, except liberals engage in a certain amount of hypocrisy or double standard. Now a bit later on Chris was off into another area and that part I didn’t get too. Hope I am being clear? : )
Chris: “This wasn’t the case as recently as fifty years ago, when in most states, husbands could still legally rape their wives. The term “marital rape,” in fact, would have been seen as an oxymoron to most people in this generation.”
In fact this description of marriage fifty years ago is more fiction than fact generally speaking. While every relationship and marriage is different, and not all marriages were pleasant or without problems, the nonesense that women were merely slaves to evil men who oppressed and took advantage of them would come as a big surprise to the men that actually lived through the period. Guffaws are ringing through the halls at the old folks home as we speak!
Marital rape is a new term devised by disgruntled feminist women with disfunctional family recollections. Instead of dealing with their own disfunction and relationships they projected it on society and then set out to fix it with new rules. Fifty years ago it was up to a couple to determine the boundries and rules for their marriage and no two homes were exactly the same.
“They used appeals to tradition and religion to argue that men have always had unrestricted sexual access to their wives. You are using the same kind of bad arguments to fight against gay marriage today.”
For the record the fight for me isn’t against gay marriage. I am fighting to SAVE marriage.
I am not against gays forming committed relationships and and having families. I don’t think marriage, as I understand it, applies to those relationships.
“When you say “traditional marriage,” you seem to be only thinking of the good parts and ignoring the bad. Traditional marriage includes polygyny, it includes oppression of women, it includes legal marital rape, it includes child marriage, it includes arranged marriage, and it includes oppressive economic transactions that involved little choice in the matter for either party, but usually the woman had less choice.”
I have not argued to bring back old traditions that were sometimes oppressive or harmful to women and children. I have argued to preserve the obligation that a man and a woman who join together have because of the probability that they will create new human life. As I said earlier, except for that possible outcome there would be no reason for a marriage contract. People could live together until they got bored or tired and then move on.
The one big thing missing in most discussions of this nature are the children. Many kids are brought into the world and end up for vario9us reasons without a mother or father or both but I don’t think too many people woulod agree that the best condition for human development would be to be raised by parents, one each, that are blood parents to the child. The relationship is strong when dna is involved; nobody cares about a child as much as his mother and father, generally speaking.
“Tina, do you think Newt Gingrich and his past few wives should have been legally allowed to divorce? Why or why not?”
Why Newt? Why not one of the many movie stars that influence our society with their parades of rleationships? Have you seen the Carrie Fisher special? It’s amazing. The wall behind her on set is filled with pictures of movie stars and in her incredibly humorous way she describes how these people have married each other. I think Newt would agree that his own sense of what it is to commit to another is much different now than it was earlier in his life.
My approach would be to try to change how people think about marriage, commitment, and having children rather than attempting a top down solution. I have no desire to run other peoples lives or force them to conform or bend to my will. My purpose is to restore a greater sense of responsibility and commitment about marriage and family as well as greater care and responsibility about our pre-marital lives. An easy way to say it would be that we allow people to behave like children for much longer than we once did. We have failed to teach the responsibility of adulthood to our young.
“Shouldn’t some of these negative outcomes be manifesting by now?”
No. When we decided kids wouldn’t be harmed by easing divorce laws, recreational drug use, promiscuous sex, and leaving our children with strangers so we could go to work, the problems that are now tracked to those changes were not acknowledged or recognized for many years. The changes I mention all contributed. Eroding the marriage obligation by blurring it’s traditional meaning even more would probably not be recognized by some just as some still think that drug use isn’t a big problem for our society. I find that the type of person who would make that arguement is usually thinking only of himself and what he wants rahter than how society as a whole is affected.
The family has already been destroyed to a great degree in the balck community and in the younger generation. It was destroyed by replacing the man/father with the state. Feminists helped to bring this about by teaching obsurd extremist positions. Accepting that gays in a committed relationship is exactly the same as a man and a woman in a committed relationship will further erode the purpose for marriage. Progressives of the hard core variety want exactly that. Many of them think children should be taken fromm their parents and raised by the state.
Relaxed social and personal morals and traditions played a role in the destruction of Rome.
Thanks Jack for taking the time to clarify. My problem is I’ve been frustrated by my computer and haven’t been able to keep up with the converstion as closely as I should. Makes sense now.
Glad to see we agree, Jack.
Tina: “Hmmmm…too late! The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was/is “guided by” the Judeo/Christian religion.”
Yes, but “Guided by” is not the same thing as “dictated by.” Of course Christian principles inspired the Constitution. But the Constitution is not a religious document, and it doesn’t enshrine religious law. In fact, it explicitly PROTECTS us from living under a theocratic system. That’s one of its main strengths.
“I know you don’t get it but I am being very serious and hoped to inspire serious discussion.”
I would like to do that too, but that requires us to address each others’ actual points, not make up strawman arguments and then knock them down with all the ease they require
“You had that capability a few years back, as you mature you have gotten quite rigid in your willingness to consider other views.”
I’ve considered the anti-SSM position. I held it for the first 18 or so years of my life. I found it lacking on every level. Still, I am willing to discuss the issue with you as long as you engage with it honestly and fairly.
“Most of the incivility that I encounter comes from overly emotional and angry gay men who are incapable of having a sane discussion. they are output channels of hate and derision. They are unwilling to accept that others may have a different opinion.”
Tina, I think perhaps you need to consider a different perspective for a moment. Imagine that you were attracted to other women, and you could see no way of stopping this attraction. You’ve tried reparative therapy, but it only made you hate yourself more. You’ve tried men, but you’re in love with a woman. She’s everything you ever wanted: a smart, feisty log cabin Republican who shares your passion for blogging and your taste in patriotic movies. You want to spend your lives with each other, and you can’t see how that’s wrong.
Think about the hatred, anger and shame that you would find yourself faced with every day. You mention facing incivility from gays, but do you also acknowledge that gay people have, historically and recently, been treated in an unusually uncivil manner both as a group and on an individual level?
Of course gays do not have a monopoly on being bullied, and they are as capable of being uncivil as anyone. I already know you are going to bring that up, since you always do, but I’m asking you to consider the other side for a second. Why do you think these people are emotional? Why do you think they might be angry at you?
How much hostility and incivility do you think these people deal with every day? They are constantly told that their love is immoral, that they have mental problems, that they are sick and wrong and evil and need to be fixed. I know you think that homosexuality is a sin, and you’re entitled to that belief, but…are other sinners really treated this way? Adultery is a sin, but is there a large national movement out there trying to get Newt Gingrich’s marriage annulled? Premarital sex is a sin, but are Christian conservatives trying to outlaw it? Gambling is a sin, are you trying to ban casinos? What makes gay people so worthy of being singled out for condemnation and unequal treatment? Why are their sins so much worse?
The fact is that in this debate, gays are the primary victims of hatred and derision, not SSM opponents. This is not an emotional plea, it’s not an attempt to gain the moral high ground, and it’s not PC. This is objective reality. Now, this doesn’t mean that gays and their allies don’t ever treat conservative Christians who oppose SSM badly. They can, and they have.
But there’s no comparison between mean comments from gays toward conservatives, and the historical oppression they’ve been faced with. No one is trying to stop Christian conservatives from marrying. No presidential candidate is saying that states have the right to ban Christians from having consensual sex. There is no history of American Christians en masse staying “in the closet” for fear of persecution. Christian teens don’t commit suicide at higher rates than the general population because they are told that who they are is wrong. Christian conservative teens aren’t often kicked out of their houses and onto the streets for being Christian conservatives. No one sends Christian teens to reparative therapy. No one says that Christian conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military.
Look, I get that you don’t like it when gay people say mean things about you. They shouldn’t do that! Not only is it uncivil, it’s counterproductive to their cause. But you need to put yourself in their shoes and think about the psychological toll that this kind of stigma and bigotry would have on you if you had to face it every day. I guarantee you, you’d be angry. And you might not always be able to contain that anger, even despite your best efforts.
I think both sides could make an effort to be more civil. But there’s still a moral difference between the bully, and the kid who gets so fed up with being bullied that he finally punches the bully in the nose.
“This one sentence shows that when responding to my honest entreaties for discussion you are on the same page as the angry gay men. You have no interest in understanding what I’m thinking much less caring about the things that could end up adversely affecting the lives of those kids and their kids, or our country. You lack the ability, it seems, to think beyond emotional concerns.”
I’m sorry, I really don’t see what was wrong with the question I asked. You seem to have read it as sarcasm, but I meant it as, to use your term, an “honest entreaty.” You say I’m not interested in things that could adversely affect the lives of kids raised by same-sex married couples, but how can you think that when I explicitly told you to ask those kids if they feel like they’re experiencing adverse effects? You completely ignored my question and acted as if it were somehow irrelevant and stupid. In my opinion that would indicate a lack of concern on your part. If you are concerned that there could be adverse effects, why on earth wouldn’t you ask the kids you think are being affected? Who better to ask? I just don’t get why you thought my question was unreasonable.
“None of the changes listed change the basic nature of marriage or matrimony,”
What I’m trying to make clear to you is that this is a matter of historical perspective. Based on the values of the time period you were raised in, the “basic nature” of matrimony is preserved as long as it involves a man and a woman. Everything else, according to you, is superficial in comparison. But that’s a result of your upbringing, not something that earlier generations would necessarily agree with. To someone living in a different time and place, it would have seemed rational to say that the “basic nature” of marriage was changed when wives were no longer the legal property of their husbands. Just a few hours ago, my mom (who is against same-sex marriage) told me that in Sunday school, she was taught that interracial marriage was wrong (there is scripture to support this view). Some of those who strongly believed in this view saw the legalization of interracial marriage as a violation of the “basic nature” of marriage. I can find you some old articles where they said as much, if you don’t believe me.
This is a perfect example of why appeals to tradition and appeals to nature are logical fallacies.
“the condition of maternity, that drives the necessity of marriage between one man and one woman. Were it not for the fact that we procreate there would be no reason for any of us to marry at all.”
*sigh* But you know full well that we allow couples to marry who do not, even cannot, have children.
By your logic, we shouldn’t allow anyone over the age of 90 to marry, since the purpose of marriage is to have babies. Nor should we allow the infertile or women who have had hysterectomies get married.
I’m anticipating your next argument, because I’ve heard it so many times before–“We make laws based on rules, not exceptions!” OK, but how many exceptions do we allow before the rule doesn’t even apply any more? And how do we decide which exceptions to make and which not to?
Even if I accepted the rule that “the purpose of marriage is procreation”–which I don’t, as I will explain further in a moment–we allow so many exceptions to this. We allow people to marry who are infertile due to medical conditions; we allow people to marry who cannot have children because of elective procedures; we allow couples to marry and stay married even if they have no intention of ever having children, and never do. And you know what? I’d bet that if you combine all these married couples together, they would vastly outnumber the number of gay couples who would get married. Gays are only a small percentage of the population. So what’s the harm of adding one more “exception?” If we allow so many already, why do we draw the line at gay couples?
And don’t say “Because they are not a man and a woman,” because that’s circular logic that begs the question.
If we allow all these other exceptions, how is adding one more relatively small group into the institution going to collapse the whole thing?
“Marriage is a specific word with specific meaning and purpose.”
But marriage, as I’ve demonstrated, has had many DIFFERENT purposes throughout history–some of them even contradict one another! I would say the main purpose of marriage for Americans today is companionship and romantic love. The government has an interest in supporting such unions because married people are less likely to need government support and be a drain on society in the future. Marriage also helps the children who are raised by these couples if they choose to do so, whether they are adopted or biological progeny. These two purposes of marriage fit gay and straight couples equally.
I don’t consider the other types of marriages I mentioned above (infertile, past child age, child-free) to be “exceptions” to a rule, and I doubt most Americans do. Their marriages are considered as being just as valid and valuable as those which produce children. We see them this way because we acknowledge that marriage isn’t just about procreation. That’s a very important purpose for many people’s marriages, but it’s not an important purpose, or even a purpose at all, for all of them. It’s certainly not the ONLY purpose of marriage, because there are perfectly great marriages which never do and/or never can fulfill this purpose.
The “rule” that “marriage is for procreation” seems to only be trotted out in the public sphere these days as a convenient argument against same-sex marriage…it’s not a rule that is consistently applied. And it seems to me that the reason for this is that gays are a minority. They’re an easy target. Persecution against gays has a long history in most societies, including this one; in many states, homosexuality was a criminal offense. No one would ever seriously advocate banning elderly people from getting married, because majority members know that they might need to take advantage of that right one day. But most people don’t think that they will ever want a gay marriage for themselves, so that’s much easier for them to argue against.
The rule you advocate is an old one that clearly doesn’t apply today. You’re asking us to apply this rule only selectively, to allow straight couples to break it with impunity while only drawing the line at gays. Perhaps that’s not your intention; it’s probably not something you’ve even considered. But it’s what you’re doing, and by doing so you are using a double standard and asking us to enshrine unequal treatment into law. And you’re making a lot of people suffer for the sole purpose of upholding a standard that doesn’t really exist anymore.
I’m eager to hear back from you. I know this is a touchy issue, but I remain very hopeful that I can change hearts and minds on it.
Tina, I’m kind of astonished at your argument that marital rape is a “fiction.” It is a fact that for most of U.S. history, husbands were legally entitled to have sex with their wives whenever they wanted, and that included violating their wives’ consent. I have not argued that this occurred in all or even most marriages before marital rape was outlawed. I am perfectly aware that most couples set their own boundaries for such issues, as they always have to some degree. But in cases where marital rape DID occur–and you can’t seriously argue that it never did–husband faced no legal consequences for raping their wives. This undeniably created an unequal system, and it is one way in which women were less free then than they are today.
However, your characterization of me as arguing that “women were merely slaves to evil men who oppressed and took advantage of them” is yet another strawman argument. I have already made it clear that I do not see the people who upheld these institutions as “evil,” they were simply following the cultural norms of their time. You are demonstrating why it is difficult for me to have a serious, honest discussion on any topic with you. You are ignoring historical facts and mischaracterizing my positions, and I’d prefer it if we could both avoid that. If you feel I’m doing the same to you at any point, please let me know.
Chris I am responding in reverse order as I failed to see you had made two seperate comments.
“It is a fact that for most of U.S. history, husbands were legally entitled to have sex with their wives whenever they wanted…”
It is also a fact that women were trained to give sex to their husbands, to engage in willing submission. This was wise advice that when followed helped men to maintain their health and stifle a wandering eye. The practice is a considerate act that makes for a healthier and closer relationship. But feminists take an adversarial position and therefore evaluate the circumstances of the past only in terms of the oppressed female and fail to consider the role that women might have played in determining this condition of marital rape.
I don’t deny that men have behaved badly. But men are human, not machines and women have been pretending innocence and pointing fingers without looking in mirrors for way too long. They fail to look inward for answers/solutions to their marital problems and they use feminist arguments as an excuse….and they’ve been getting away with it!
Imagine what we might find if men chose to conduct an equal forty or fifty years of activism and legislation based in complaints about the behaviors and practices of of women throughout history! I can imagine complaints about endless screeching and brow beating, spending money that the family doesn’t have and demanding more. I can imagine constant put downs and comparisons…he never does anything right. I can imagine a considerable lack of appreciation for what he has willingly provided. I can imagine sex withheld to punish. I can imagine bad mouthing the man in her life, or men in general, with her friends and then stupidly wondering why she doesn’t have a close, intimate relationship like the lucky people in the movies. I can imagine her blaming him for holding her back when she doesn’t have a career when it was her choice to marry and have children. I can imagine her going out with her girlfriends and letting things like the laundry pile up while inssiting he doesn’t do enough around the house.
Not all women engage in such things but a lot do. It wouldn’t be too difficult to make the case for woman as ugly bitches who destroy families. Painting the female gender with such broad strokes and condemning them as the reason that men can’t succeed at marriage and family would not be difficult. It would also be stupid just as making decisions about men keeping women from realizing their dreams is stupid. Making arguments based on historical realities is equally useless.
Equality in relationship is a state of mind and is nurtured through mutual respect and honoring of ones mate.
“Imagine that you were attracted to other women, and you could see no way of stopping this attraction. You’ve tried reparative therapy, but it only made you hate yourself more. You’ve tried men, but you’re in love with a woman. She’s everything you ever wanted: a smart, feisty log cabin Republican who shares your passion for blogging and your taste in patriotic movies. You want to spend your lives with each other, and you can’t see how that’s wrong.”
I have attempted to imagine it, Chris. I really wish you would quit treating me like you think I’m an empty headed student in your lofty class.
I cannot imagine that I would in any way consider my relationship with another woman, including if I had children or she did, as the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. I would think of it as an arrangement for my (and her) personal benefit. I would be responsible for my own children and she hers. I would also have to live with the knowledge that I have, by my selfish choice, placed them in a position of having to deal with others based on my decision to think of myself before them. Our children are with us as children for only a few short years. Is it too much to ask that we provide them with stability and love while they mature to adulthood? Perhaps those in the gay community have been concentrating on their own need so all-inclusively that they have failed to consider how their choices have put their children awkward, or difficult, positions. It’s the same with divorced parents…by their unwillingness to consider the lives of their children ahead of their own selfish needs and wants they place them in awkward and difficult positions…and all too often without giving it a thought.
Marriage to me is now and has always been primarily an agreed upon obligation to form a family for the children’s sake. Yes it’s wonderful that I love my husband and we share affection and regard for each other but we could do that without a marriage certificate. Any two people can form a loving relationship to whatever degree of intimacy they choose. Only a man and a woman can create new life and the obligation to those children is the purpose for creating the marriage bed.
“Think about the hatred, anger and shame that you would find yourself faced with every day. You mention facing incivility from gays, but do you also acknowledge that gay people have, historically and recently, been treated in an unusually uncivil manner both as a group and on an individual level?”
As you know I don’t like it when anyone is uncivil, however, I also don’t think that the incivility is inspired by gays living together and enjoying life as they choose. I think most Americans are quite tolerant of that.
Gays continue to move the goal post in terms of what they want. First they just wanted to be out of the closet, then they wanted others to accept their “alternate lifestyles”, then they wanted special laws and introduced “civil unions” as the cure for their problems, and now they will not be happy ubless they can change the very definition and practice of the word marrige (which they already have in some dictionaries as well as in some states). I think some, if not most, of the anger they are encountering is inspired by their moving the goal post, their militant insistance that disagreement with this latest demand is based in hatred, and their own in your face, unrelenting anger. They don’t have respect for others and yet they expect to be respected.
“But marriage, as I’ve demonstrated, has had many DIFFERENT purposes throughout history–some of them even contradict one another!”
People have practiced marriage in several ways, usually self-serving in nature, but that does not change the fundamental purpose for marriage or the very specific difference in function that is basic in men and in women.
“The rule you advocate is an old one that clearly doesn’t apply today.”
There is nothing new under the sun.
“You’re asking us to apply this rule only selectively, to allow straight couples to break it with impunity while only drawing the line at gays.”
That is not an adequate description of my position. I understand on an emotional level how the gay community feels. I don’t think feelings are a very compelling reason to change what has been a solid pillar of civilization. If anything, as I’ve said, we have adopted practices that undermine this pillar in too many ways already. We need to support people in forming solid continuing marriages with children benefitting from being raised by their own mothers and fathers and that includes adopting mores and customs that honor marriage and discourage easy divorce. I view divorce as very destructive to children and our society. People are too often unwilling to accept responsibility for their problems and the cures for their problems. It is far too easy and acceptable to blame others or something else for the troubles and then run from them.
Tina:
“I am not against gays forming committed relationships and and having families. I don’t think marriage, as I understand it, applies to those relationships.”
Tina, are you in favor of civil unions for gays? I think you have said before that you are. What do you think about the law that NC Republicans recently passed which banned not only gay marriage, but also civil unions? Do you find that a bit excessive?
(NOTE: I was criticized earlier for blaming this fully on Republicans…but the vote took place the day of the NC Republican primary. It is not illogical to assume that Republicans turned out in bigger numbers than Democrats.)
“I have not argued to bring back old traditions that were sometimes oppressive or harmful to women and children.”
I understand that, but that’s why it makes no sense for you and others to use the term “traditional marriage” as a trump card in this debate. If you’re leaving out everything that was oppressive to women, then the type of marriage you’re talking about isn’t all that traditional; it’s actually quite modern, relatively speaking. The marriages you grew up around, Tina, where husbands and wives were mostly seen as equal partners, where women had property rights and could vote, where romantic love was valued about as much as financial circumstances–those were the result of many social changes which occurred over time. And all of these changes were faced with a lot of resistance from the dominant community at first. The phrase “traditional marriage” ignores all of these changes in order to pretend that marriage has always been one thing, and one thing only.
If you’re going to argue that we shouldn’t make the particular social change of allowing gays to legally marry, then you can’t just appeal to tradition and expect that to settle the argument. You need to give actual reasons why this specific change is a bad idea.
“The one big thing missing in most discussions of this nature are the children.”
This is weird for you to say, since when I asked you to consider the children raised by gay couples, you responded as if I had just wiped my mouth on the tablecloth.
I agree we should consider the interests of children when making any social change.
“Many kids are brought into the world and end up for vario9us reasons without a mother or father or both but I don’t think too many people woulod agree that the best condition for human development would be to be raised by parents, one each, that are blood parents to the child. The relationship is strong when dna is involved; nobody cares about a child as much as his mother and father, generally speaking.”
This, however, is a total non-sequiter. It makes no sense as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
Gay people in general don’t tend to bring kids into the world. Nor do they tend to kidnap children from their married biological parents in the dead of night. In what way would gay marriage prevent children from being raised by their mother and father? It wouldn’t, yet this argument is constantly trotted out as a rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage, and it often goes unquestioned.
Now, there are gay couples who use donors or artificial insemination to produce children. I never had a problem with these methods until I started visiting the Family Scholars blog, which mostly deals with these issues but also talks a lot about gay marriage:
familyscholars.org
After talking with some people who are donor conceived, I think that at least this practice needs to be better regulated. But even this isn’t really an argument against gay marriage, because 1) gays are able to use these methods even if they aren’t married, and 2) gays and straights both use these methods; in fact, straights, being the majority, use artificial reproduction more.
Adoption by gay couples is also legal. But unlike artificial reproduction, adoption doesn’t deprive children of their rights to their biological mother and father. Adoption occurs when the biological parents have already given their children away. Gay couples who adopt should be admired for taking these children in.
I agree that children probably do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father. But this has nothing to do with whether we should ban gay marriage. We don’t ban adoption by gays or straights. We don’t ban divorce or stop children from being raised by step-parents. We don’t ban donor tech or artificial insemination (though maybe we should think about it).
It makes no sense to ban situations which are helpful but less than ideal. Gay couples are going to continue raising children even if they are not allowed to get married. If you really believe in the stabilizing influence of marriage, you should support these couples’ right to marry. Letting them get married would provide a more stable and secure environment for their children.
I don’t support gay marriage because I haven’t thought about the children. I support it because I have.
“Why Newt? Why not one of the many movie stars that influence our society with their parades of rleationships?”
Because unlike Newt Gingrich, the Hollywood stars you’re thinking of aren’t trying to ban people they don’t like from getting married. Also because Newt Gingrich is someone you admire, and I wanted to make the question hard for you. But you seem to have chosen to dodge it entirely. I’ll ask again: do you think such a marriage should be legal? Why or why not?
“Have you seen the Carrie Fisher special? It’s amazing. The wall behind her on set is filled with pictures of movie stars and in her incredibly humorous way she describes how these people have married each other.”
I haven’t seen it, but I should check it out. She is an awesome and hilarious person.
“I think Newt would agree that his own sense of what it is to commit to another is much different now than it was earlier in his life.”
He divorced and re-married in 2000, which wasn’t that long ago, but you’re probably right. Even so, that doesn’t answer the question of whether his non-traditional marriage should be legal or not.
“My approach would be to try to change how people think about marriage, commitment, and having children rather than attempting a top down solution. I have no desire to run other peoples lives or force them to conform or bend to my will.”
But when you voted to annul the marriages of thousands of your fellow Californians in 2008, that’s exactly what you did. I am all for getting people to think more seriously about marriage before they jump into it. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with allowing gay people to marry, especially when this group tends to put a lot of symbolic importance on marriage.
“My purpose is to restore a greater sense of responsibility and commitment about marriage and family as well as greater care and responsibility about our pre-marital lives.”
That’s great, but again, we can do this while also legalizing gay marriage. There is no contradiction.
“Relaxed social and personal morals and traditions played a role in the destruction of Rome.”
This has always struck me as a bizarre argument, since the morals of Rome even during it’s golden age–especially in regards to homosexual conduct–were veeeery different from the morals of America at any point in our history.
Tina, in your rant about mean feminists you completely ignored the reason I brought up marital rape. You’re talking about women treating their husbands badly, while I’m talking about LEGAL INEQUALITY. You write:
“Equality in relationship is a state of mind”
This may be true in some sense, but it’s a terrible counterargument to offer when we’re talking about marital rape and other historic legal inequalities. Equality in a relationship is of course something that couples still wrestle with, and always will. But obviously, it’s much easier to foster the “state of mind” of equality in a relationship when the law doesn’t make one partner subservient to the other. When laws such as that exist, people are going to take advantage of them.
Anyway, the main point (which you didn’t address) was that many aspects of marriage have changed over time, and many of these changes have been for the better. Many of them have also been viewed by some as FUNDAMENTAL changes to the nature of marriage, not just to surface details. To a husband in 12th century England, his right to determine all decisions for his household was a fundamental part of godly marriage. Had that been taken away or challenged, he would have seen it as a huge change in the definition of marriage. Just as you see gay marriage today.
I’m also deeply confused by this statement of yours:
“Making arguments based on historical realities is equally useless.”
Huh? How? You can’t possible believe this. You yourself are attempting to make arguments based on historic realities every time you bring up “traditional marriage.”
“I cannot imagine that I would in any way consider my relationship with another woman, including if I had children or she did, as the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. I would think of it as an arrangement for my (and her) personal benefit. I would be responsible for my own children and she hers. I would also have to live with the knowledge that I have, by my selfish choice…”
If this is what you think real empathy looks like, I fear this debate may be a lost cause. You’re not really putting yourself in another person’s perspective here, because you’re bringing all of your previous judgments and assumptions with you. You’re essentially saying that if you were gay, you would be the Best and Most Selfless Lesbian Ever, and you wouldn’t ever share the delusion that most gay people have, that they actually have a right to get married. You think you know better than all of them, and that if you were in their position you would handle their situations so much better. That’s not empathy. Even when you try to put yourself in another person’s shoes, you can’t help your natural tendency to assert your own inherent superiority and dominance. That’s what I call selfishness.
“Any two people can form a loving relationship to whatever degree of intimacy they choose.”
The difference is that any two straight people (as long as they are not closely related) can receive legal marriage benefits from such relationships, regardless of whether they fulfill your stated purpose of producing children. Any two gay people cannot receive legal marriage benefits. You have yet to give a convincing explanation for why this should be so.
“That is not an adequate description of my position.”
Yes, it is. You lecture straight people who you view as corrupting traditional marriage, but you aren’t trying to ban them from the institution. That is fundamentally different from the way you want the law to treat gay couples. Even though a gay couple is just as unlikely to produce children as a straight couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy, you only ask us to apply the “procreation” rule to the gay couple and not to the straight one. Please address this difference.
Chris: “What do you think about the law that NC Republicans recently passed which banned not only gay marriage, but also civil unions? Do you find that a bit excessive?”
The law was passed by minority Republicans, Democrats, and others and a rainbow of colors, Chris.
I think there is a chance that if the law is excessive the excess was driven by gays constantly moving the goal post. If they didn’t make the law finite they would be right back in the same soup within six months to a year…that has been the history of gay activism when the people have already spoken.
“(I was criticized earlier for blaming this fully on Republicans…but the vote took place the day of the NC Republican primary. It is not illogical to assume that Republicans turned out in bigger numbers than Democrats.)
Are you kidding…with gay marriage on the ballot I think that’s a nutty assumption. Here’s one report:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/08/twenty-percent-of-nc-dems-decline-to-vote-for-obama/#ixzz1v4Ncnjcp
“that’s why it makes no sense for you and others to use the term “traditional marriage” as a trump card in this debate. If you’re leaving out everything that was oppressive to women, then the type of marriage you’re talking about isn’t all that traditional; it’s actually quite modern, relatively speaking.”
Most of the time, unless conversations end up in the weeds as they do when things like marital rape are brought up, the use of the term is simply a method for distinguishing marriage as it has been traditionally defined as between one man and one woman and any other configurations that have been anomalies in Western culture.
“And all of these changes were faced with a lot of resistance from the dominant community at first.”
Most of the things you named had to do with power structure within the marriage. A change in the way we view or experience power within a marriage does not alter the basic structure of one man one woman.
“You need to give actual reasons why this specific change is a bad idea.”
I have…it usually falls on deaf ears, ignoring historical evidence that the break up of family and relaxation of traditions and morals is a precursor to the destruction of civilization.
“This, however, is a total non-sequiter. It makes no sense as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage.
I suppose if you are arguing in purely emotional terms on a case by case basis. But that is not my argument. My position has to do with a much bigger picture. I believe it is in all of our best interests to promote and support original family structures. It’s a tough stance, I know, and one that many straight people will be against because it requires a higher level of personal responsibility in our nation. It requires us to both think and teach differently than we have over the past several decades. It requires that we put something larger than ourselves, something other than our own emotional and selfish needs, at the forefront in our lives. Our country is a festering wound that will not heal without a strong commitment to future generations.
“In what way would gay marriage prevent children from being raised by their mother and father? It wouldn’t, yet this argument is constantly trotted out as a rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage, and it often goes unquestioned.”
As with divorced children they are forced to divide their time between households. People who put their own needs above their children don’t want to think about how it affects their kids and often the kids don’t know what is/has been missing in their lives until much later. I’m not talking about mass destruction, Chris, I’m arguing about what our nation should promote and support as the best possible scenario for children. I support civil unions because I believe as you do that relationships where kids are involved should have an added measure of stability that a civil union would accomplish. This is an after the fact measure, however, that we would not deny those gay couples without children since that would be discriminatory. This solution preserves marriage while accommodating and addressing the concerns of gays. Pies suggestion, that the state no longer recognize marriage is another solution but I don’t necessarily think it would result in a stronger nation.
“But this has nothing to do with whether we should ban gay marriage.”
You insist on saying we are in the process of “banning” gay marriage. I refuse to agree to this notion. Marriage between gays has never been in this country or in others as far as I know. From my perspective the meaning and purpose of marriage is being undermined…some might say destroyed…by efforts to change what marriage is.
I answered your question about Newt. You don’t like the answer because it doesn’t follow the progressive mode of forcing things down everyone’s throat through intimidation, forced legislation and lawsuits! I said I prefer to create support for traditional marriage from the grassroots. I prefer to change minds and attitudes to create greater commitment in marriage and fewer divorces. I prefer to let laws follow the will of the people.
“But when you voted to annul the marriages of thousands of your fellow Californians in 2008, that’s exactly what you did.”
No more so than those people did when they engaged in marriage ceremonies in defiance of the will of the people as expressed by passing prop 8. (Forced change is never going to sit well with the people)
“…this group tends to put a lot of symbolic importance on marriage.”
Until a few years ago this group never brought the subject up. They defended the “alternative lifestyle” as something they should be free to engage in openly (and to hell with anyone who might be offended). In fact marriage in general was considered by many a prison of constraints against self-realization.
“That’s great, but again, we can do this while also legalizing gay marriage. There is no contradiction.”
I disagree. You will with one fell swoop completely alter the nature of marriage. It will become in future an institution of any possible construction as people argue that the benefits enjoyed by gays should also be extended to them.
“…since the morals of Rome even during it’s golden age-…”
So the seeds of destruction were built in…it still fell apart, in part, because foundational structures of marriage and family broke down.
“it’s much easier to foster the “state of mind” of equality in a relationship when the law doesn’t make one partner subservient to the other.”
Feminists, for their own reasons, ignore the words “willing submission” when considering marital sex. They believe the woman should be the head. One has even stated that all marital sex is rape. Many of the attitudes that feminists have created about men and marriage have been very wrong and destructive. Which may be another reason so many young women virtually marry the state these days.
Citing the elderly who marry as sufficient evidence that marriage for gays should be a standard we promote is irrelevant. The elderly can marry, not because they are elderly, but because they are man and woman. The standard applies to them even though they are beyond the age of childbearing (My grandfather, however, fathered a child at age 72 with his forty-something year old wife).
“Anyway, the main point (which you didn’t address) was that many aspects of marriage have changed over time, and many of these changes have been for the better.”
All of them solidified the standard that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“You yourself are attempting to make arguments based on historic realities every time you bring up “traditional marriage.”
My arguments go to what I think is best for children and the strength of our nation as a whole. I acknowledge by virtue of being here that changes in how the power in marriage is considered have occurred. You have ignored the argument that those changes did not fundamentally alter the definition of marriage between man and woman as gay marriage certainly would.
“If this is what you think real empathy looks like…”
It is not what I think empathy looks like. I don’t base opinions about the law on my feelings for another persons situation. At this age and with my experience if I put myself in that situation I have to bring my entire self to it not just my feelings. I think I have expressed empathy. I understand it is a very difficult situation which, if you recall, is why I suggested creating an entire set of traditions around civil unions that would mirror marriage celebrations and ceremonies. that too wasn’t enough…it’s my way or the highway for gays who want marriage to mean something that includes them.
“You think you know better than all of them, and that if you were in their position you would handle their situations so much better. Even when you try to put yourself in another person’s shoes, you can’t help your natural tendency to assert your own inherent superiority and dominance. That’s what I call selfishness.”
Not at all. You have not asked a two year old to empathize you have asked a mature adult with more than a few miles on her tread to empathize.
But this is one way to dismiss me entirely; something your side often does when it doesn’t get its way. Basing the law on feelings is not a good idea. I may be one of the main reasons that men sometimes throw up their hands and force a takeover of power. All of the qualities that make mother mother do not work when constructing laws that we must all live by. Blind justice would a whimpering female who constantly cries, “But that’s not fair.”
Attempting to make things fair, through the use of the law, is only making a mess.
Our laws should be simple. The rest of the torrid, confusing, emotional minutia that makes up the c0ontent of our individual lives and relationships should be dealt with as individuals and within our families whatever their makeup. The choices we make as human beings alter our lives in many ways.
“The difference is that any two straight people (as long as they are not closely related) can receive legal marriage benefits from such relationships, regardless of whether they fulfill your stated purpose of producing children.”
Only because they are a man and a woman not related. It is the one necessary component…or has been.
“Any two gay people cannot receive legal marriage benefits. You have yet to give a convincing explanation for why this should be so.”
Once again I have given an explanation. You don’t like it and unless you can shift from an emotion based perspective and consider my arguments in terms of a national standard that best supports children and the strength of the nation, you won’t. I accept your differing view; it is not mine.
“You lecture straight people…”
It is not my purpose or place to “lecture” anyone. I am expressing my views and opinions and I offer you and anyone else the same.
“…but you aren’t trying to ban them from the institution…”
My purpose is not to ban but to preserve.
“you only ask us to apply the “procreation” rule to the gay couple and not to the straight one. Please address this difference.”
The standard, the definition, is ONE MAN ONE WOMAN. Gay people do not, cannot, fit in the set. A woman with a hysterectomy with a man does fit. The standard was not made for them, however, it is made for the children that usually follow when a man and a woman join together in the marriage bed.
As I said, if it were not for procreation why would anyone get married? What would be the incentive…especially for men. Relaxation of our sexual mores has resulted in less commitment to marriage by men not more. Relaxation of divorce laws has led to more divorce and promiscuity, not less.
I’m fighting for the basic unit that makes the family strong for children, and our country strong as a result, realizing that there will always be exceptions to the standard. Mine is a big picture view. You are, for the most part, empathizing with gay couples, a totally different thing.
Chris I missed this correction:
“…in your rant about mean feminists…”
The rant was about women, not feminists exclusively.
But feminists have used history (according to them) as a club and to justify their negative positions and attitudes toward men. They used the same less than honest appraisals of history to indoctrinate a couple of generations of women. Thankfully a good number didn’t buy the entire all power to women, women are smarter, better, stronger, marriage is prison and men are rotten, unnecessary and irrelevant…but more than a few did. In the process they haven’t done marriage, or the stability of our society any good and a lot of children were affected by feminist rage and self-interest when those women abruptly turned their backs on the commitments they made to family.
Tina, I only have time to respond to a couple of things right now.
You are still using circular reasoning to argue against same-sex marriage.
Your argument goes as follows:
Premise 1: Marriage is for producing children
Premise 2: Only men and women can produce children
Conclusion 1: So only men and women should be allowed to marry each other
Conclusion 2: But men and women who cannot produce children should still be allowed to marry each other
Conclusion 3: Because they are still men and women
Do you still not see the logical fallacy in this argument? If not, then I’m not sure how any debate with you can be productive.
You accuse me of relying completely on “emotional” arguments, but that’s just not true. I did ask you to show empathy, which you had…difficulty with, but I’ve also offered logical explanations for why your arguments don’t hold up, and I’ve offered logical reasons for why we should allow and encourage same-sex marriage.
If you’re going to criticize me for using emotional arguments rather than logical ones, then you should make sure your own arguments are logical. So far, they haven’t been.
Furthermore, your insistence that the primary purpose for marriage is procreation ignores the fact that in American marriage law, there is no procreation requirement. We are talking about the law here, and the law does not require that a couple be able to produce children in order for them to marry. Yet it does require that they be a man and a woman. Without a procreation requirement, this law is completely arbitrary.
“As I said, if it were not for procreation why would anyone get married? What would be the incentive…especially for men.”
Tina, this is a really dumb and sexist question to ask, and it’s offensive to me as a man. My incentive to get married is to commit myself to the person I love. That’s the case for most people of my generation.
I must say, for all your talk about “man-hating” feminists, I don’t hear this kind of crap from feminists. I hear it an awful lot from conservatives, though.
Chris two can play your game. I could easily reduce your argument to something as simple as gays and lesbians deserve to be able to marry, even though it changes the very definition and purpose for marriage, because they want to and I agree because I can empathise with their emotional needs.
I do not have a legal background or degree, however, I my argument would read something like this:
Whereas, the union of one man and one woman is likely to produce children, and
Whereas, the state has an interest in promoting strong marriage for the purpose of protecting and caring for children and for the stability of the family, and
Whereas, the institution of marriage has been a strong foundational entity for the nation,
Therefore, It is imperative to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman.
I would also add, and, whereas, marriage is a solemn contract not to be enterred into casually,
Therefore, dissolution of a marriaqe contract shall be granted only when extreme grievance or betrayal of affections can be proven. (battery and adultery)
Nothing about that standard exempts people from constructing other types of unions or creating contracts to handle the business of families that are the result of divorce, promiscuity, lifestyle choice, or death of a parent/parents. But it does set a high expectation for adults, most of whom can and do have children, to provide and intact home so that children are allowed to know and grow up in a family with their mother and father. It does promote strong male/female relationship to create stability in our society. A standard sets the ideal; it does not put down or restrict people who do not fall within the parameters of the standard.
“We are talking about the law here, and the law does not require that a couple be able to produce children in order for them to marry.”
Until quite recently it was certainly understood that married people intended and expected to form a family. Marriage has not been a love ceremony.
I notice you have chosen to ignore one salient point. What would be the point of a marriage contract if children were not a factor? Why would the state or the church promote unions between people except for the fact that a man and a woman joined together can produce a child for which the couple MUST/SHOULD be responsible? That is precisely where the law, be it state law or church law, enters the picture.
There are other social factors that would support my argument that its important for the state to promote marriage as between one man one woman as well as more stringent laws for divorce:
http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010426boyfriend2.asp
The blood bond is important. Male presence makes a difference in the lives of both girls and boys but it also matters that he be bonded to the children.
Your legal arguments have more to do with the concept of fairness. It would be impossible for any state to create laws that makes life fair. I ujnderstand your arguments. I understand how gsays and lesbians feel. I think the larger overall societal purpose is a more compelling reason to maintain marriage as between one man and one woman. I understand you don’t. There is no reason to continue to debate. We have said all there is to say except I should respond to this:
“this is a really dumb and sexist question to ask, and it’s offensive to me as a man.”
Men have, in most cases, a more compelling sex drive. This is biological.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
“My incentive to get married is to commit myself to the person I love.”
Beautiful. Very romantic and nice. (Sincerely)
But a commitment to the person you love doesn’t require a legal document unless you don’t think of each other as equals or as honest. If that were the case a simple legal contract would suffice (And be less expensive than a big wedding and honeymoon).
Both “in love” parties would have careers/jobs (no other purpose exists for the female once child bearing duties are removed) and so both would have financial means. Both would hold ownership of mutual property and division of property would be something they would have to negotiate if a separation occurs. There is no real compelling need to make your relationship difficult to leave. (Which was one of the arguments for easy divorce)
Tina: “Chris two can play your game. I could easily reduce your argument to something as simple as gays and lesbians deserve to be able to marry, even though it changes the very definition and purpose for marriage, because they want to and I agree because I can empathise with their emotional needs.”
First of all, Tina, I didn’t just “reduce” your argument. I showed you that it’s based on a logical fallacy. Even if the above characterization of my argument was accurate (it’s not), it’s not logically inconsistent.
Maybe we should back up…you do know what a fallacy is, right?
Secondly, my argument has been much more complicated than your summation. I’ve given you specific reasons why gay marriage would be good for society and children. I haven’t argued that gays should get it just because they want it. I’ve also argued that the definition and purpose of marriage has changed quite a lot in human history, and that gay marriage would be a modest change compared to those historic shifts.
“I do not have a legal background or degree, however, I my argument would read something like this:
Whereas, the union of one man and one woman is likely to produce children, and
Whereas, the state has an interest in promoting strong marriage for the purpose of protecting and caring for children and for the stability of the family, and
Whereas, the institution of marriage has been a strong foundational entity for the nation,
Therefore, It is imperative to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman.”
I admire the effort here, Tina, but I think this fails to show why marriage should continue to be practiced ONLY between men and women. The two middle statements, especially, could easily be used to argue in favor of gay marriage. After all, gay couples do often protect and care for children, and marriage could offer them the same exact type of stability it would offer a family made up of a straight couple and an adopted child.
“Until quite recently it was certainly understood that married people intended and expected to form a family.”
It doesn’t matter what is “understood;” the law is the law is the law. And a requirement for married couples to be able to procreate with one another isn’t in there.
You’re still advocating a different legal standard for straight and gay couples. You want the law to bar gay couples from the institution on the grounds that they cannot have biological children together. But there are NO OTHER TYPES OF COUPLES whom you wish to impose this restriction on. Infertile couples? “Go ahead!” Elderly couples? “You’ve earned it!” Couples where the man’s had a vasectomy and/or the woman’s had a hysterectomy? “It’s your own business!” Couples who never plan on having a child? “What am I, the police?”
The restriction you imposed on gay couples is a post-facto justification for unequal treatment. There is no requirement that couples be able to procreate in marriage, and there never has been. All of a sudden when gays want to do it, you suddenly claim that this requirement exists, but ONLY in the case of gay couples. This doesn’t make sense, and it will never make sense no matter what pretzels you try to twist yourself in. That is why your side is losing the argument.
But I’m glad to see you made one concession–you said, “Until quite recently.” You’re acknowledging that marriage has changed in the past, in a very fundamental way. And you’re acknowledging that marriage, as practiced today, is not very “traditional;” it’s a recent innovation.
“Marriage has not been a love ceremony.”
Well, it is now. Right now, straight couples are legally entitled to treat marriage as a love ceremony, whether or not they can have children. Gay couples are denied this legal right. It’s a double standard.
“I notice you have chosen to ignore one salient point. What would be the point of a marriage contract if children were not a factor?”
I did not ignore this point. I gave you my reasons for why the government should encourage marriage regardless of procreative ability earlier, and you haven’t addressed them. Quoting myself:
“The government has an interest in supporting such unions because married people are less likely to need government support and be a drain on society in the future. Marriage also helps the children who are raised by these couples if they choose to do so, whether they are adopted or biological progeny. These two purposes of marriage fit gay and straight couples equally.”
I also said that allowing gay marriage “would provide a more stable and secure environment for their children [meaning children currently being raised by gay couples]…I don’t support gay marriage because I haven’t thought about the children. I support it because I have.”
The church can endorse whatever kinds of marriages they want. The law, however, has a duty to treat like things alike, and not to engage in arbitrary discrimination.
Imagine that Sam and Joe want to get married. They’re in love, and they want to commit themselves to each other publicly. Sam’s worried that the marriage institution might be a little outdated, but Joe convinces Sam that they could use the federal benefits that come with a marriage license from the government. They also want their adopted children to grow up in the most secure environment possible. They cannot have children of their own.
Notice I haven’t mentioned the genders of either Sam or Joe, and I’ve intentionally used androgynous names. Is this a same-sex couple, or an opposite-sex couple? Are they two women, two men, or a man and a woman? Why the hell does it matter? The story is EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of their genders. Either way, they don’t meet your procreation requirement (which, again, has zero basis in U.S. law).
Earlier, Tina, you said that you couldn’t imagine seeing your hypothetical lesbian relationship as being the same as a man-woman marriage. This makes me wonder how many same-sex couples you know. Those of us who do know many of them know that the love and commitment between them is the same as it is between an opposite-sex couple. It is exactly the same.
“The story has a depressingly familiar ring to it. A small child lies near death after being severely beaten and the live-in boyfriend of the biological guardian stands charged with the crime.
Most statistics show that child abuse by unrelated adults living in the same household as the child is the exception rather than the rule.
Anecdotally, however, child abuse experts paint a different picture. In single-mother households, in particular, the boyfriend frequently ends up abusing the child, for a simple reason: a failure to bond with the child.”
Tina, you really couldn’t have picked a more bizarre example to support your case. This instance shows the instability of unmarried women having live-in boyfriends around their children. We’re talking about whether we should allow same-sex couples to marry. If this example is at all relevant to what we’re discussing, it actually supports my case more than yours. I’m arguing that we should allow more couples to enjoy the stability that marriage provides. You’re the one arguing that we should deprive certain people of that stability. I just…don’t understand how you thought this example would help your case in the slightest.
“Your legal arguments have more to do with the concept of fairness. It would be impossible for any state to create laws that makes life fair.”
Total nonsense. In the past century and a half the state has created laws against slavery, segregation, marital rape, child labor, voting inequality, sexism in the workplace, workplace conditions…I could go on and on. The idea behind our constitution is that people should be treated equally, i.e. fairly.
Of course, life will never be COMPLETELY fair. But we can and have used the law to make life MORE fair than it has been in the past. Allowing gay marriage would be yet another way to do that.
“Men have, in most cases, a more compelling sex drive. This is biological.”
I know this, but it doesn’t support what you originally said, which was this:
“As I said, if it were not for procreation why would anyone get married? What would be the incentive…especially for men.”
You said anyONE. As in, why would any individual man want to get married. You were applying a generalization to all individuals. That’s dumb, and in this case, it was sexist.
The idea that no man would want to get married just for love (which is the literal meaning of what you said) portrays men as uncaring and concerned only with sex…this is not a message I hear from mainstream feminists, who I read and talk with all the time. It’s a message I hear frequently from conservatives, who tend to be far more gender-essentialist.
“Beautiful. Very romantic and nice. (Sincerely)
But a commitment to the person you love doesn’t require a legal document unless you don’t think of each other as equals or as honest. If that were the case a simple legal contract would suffice (And be less expensive than a big wedding and honeymoon).”
Tina, do you honestly think that every person who cannot have, or has no intention of having, biological children, and still chooses to get married is somehow behaving irrationally? Do you think that senior citizens should refrain from getting married? Do you think that infertile people should refrain from getting married? And do you think the reason why these people do get married, despite their inability to procreate, implies that they “don’t think of each other as equals or as honest?”
Because that’s what you just said. I’m not making a strawman argument here; you might not have meant to say this, but…it is exactly what you said. I think the many, many people who have gotten married primarily to express a commitment to the person they love would be VERY offended by your assertion. It’s a bizarre and narrow-minded position to hold, and I think most people would laugh in your face if you said it in public.
Yet even if I were to accept this premise, that wouldn’t change the fact that these people are still LEGALLY ABLE to marry. You may think that it’s dumb for people to get married simply because they’re in love, and to have no ability or intention to have children. But you are not trying to prohibit them from doing so–as long as they are a heterosexual couple. You are ONLY trying to use this logic to stop gay couples from marrying. I have reinforced the arbitrariness and irrationality of this position as much as I possible can by now; if you still don’t get it, then I don’t think you ever will.
But the good thing is…you don’t have to. Gay marriage is going to be federally recognized eventually. A look at the polls shows that this is inevitable. Today’s voters may not like the idea, but tomorrow’s voters are extremely supportive of gays having the same rights as everyone else. Despite your assertions that you are not arguing out of emotion, your arguments are so clearly illogical that they couldn’t be based on anything other than emotion; and in fact, the most common arguments from opponents of SSM are either appeals to tradition, religious arguments, or both. These are emotional arguments. Younger people’s minds aren’t as entrenched in these traditions; the ways we think and feel about men and women are different, the ways we think and feel about marriage are different, the ways we think and feel about gay people and sexuality are different. This is why your arguments don’t really work on us. We see right through them.
You’re fighting a losing battle. Which wouldn’t be so bad, if you weren’t hurting people as a result. You want us to consider possible, theoretical harms that could result in the future if we allow gay marriage, but you don’t make a good case that these harms will occur. Meanwhile, you ignore the obvious and observable harm that you are currently doing to gay people and their families.
“There is no real compelling need to make your relationship difficult to leave. (Which was one of the arguments for easy divorce)”
Tina, Google “federal marriage benefits.” Gays in civil unions–your “seperate-but-equal” solution that you think gays should be happy for–do not receive these benefits. Nor do gay married couples in the United States, because the federal government does not currently recognize these marriages. Nor do any couples who are not married under federal law.
Aw hell, I know you’re not going to Google this, so I’ll just list some of the benefits that non-married couples cannot receive:
Spousal survivor benefit
Spousal retirement benefit
Lump-sum death benefit
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS
Creating a “family partnership”
Estate and gift tax exemption
Life estate trusts
Veteran and Military benefits
Federal Employment Benefits
Immigration Benefits
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html
At the link you can read full explanations of these benefits. No other “legal document” can secure you these benefits–only marriage can. Still think it’s silly for a couple to get married when they have no plan to procreate?
The fact is that the federal government is currently discriminating against same-sex couples in real, damaging ways. They are doing so based on an unequal and illegal standard that is only placed on gay couples, not on straight couples. This is unconstitutional and immoral, and you should not support it. But it won’t last for very much longer.
Chris: “First of all, Tina, I didn’t just “reduce” your argument.”
Yes, you did Chris. In fact you set out to do exactly that. You have no interest in truly understanding the importance of preserving marriage as between a man and a woman. My position exists in your reality only as red meat to be savaged and shredded…possibly for sport.
“I admire the effort here, Tina, but…blah blah blah”
What you ALWAYS miss..the salient point…is that children in gay homes are NOT produced because of a union of the gay couple.
“And a requirement for married couples to be able to procreate with one another isn’t in there.”
There is no “requirement” to procreate. There is the biological truth that procreation can produce a child, indeed, is the very purpose and function for the sex act biologically. Just because this fact doesn’t fit in with your position doesn’t mean you get to ignore it.
“But there are NO OTHER TYPES OF COUPLES whom you wish to impose this restriction on. Infertile couples? “Go ahead!” Elderly couples? “You’ve earned it!” Couples where the man’s had a vasectomy and/or the woman’s had a hysterectomy? “It’s your own business!” Couples who never plan on having a child? “What am I, the police?”
You continue to think in terms of individuals and after the fact.
And once again, I am not imposing anything on anyone. Marriage Law in this country has always been between one man and one woman. It is law that has been totally accepted without argument for a couple of centuries. It is the gay community that is demanding/imposing a different standard. (Its easier to demonize the opposition when you reverse the aggressor role though now isn’t it?)
The law is one man and one woman. It applies to all interested parties equally. But as I said, the law exists because of the marriage bed. Except for the fact that children can result from the coupling of a man and a woman there would be no need of marriage.
“You said anyONE. As in, why would any individual man want to get married. You were applying a generalization to all individuals. That’s dumb, and in this case, it was sexist.”
You do live in a PC world and find it impossible to think outside that box. I meant exactly what I said. Why would anyone, any person, want (or need) to get married? I said “especially men” because it occurred to me as I wrote it that men have a stronger sex drive.
“The law, however, has a duty to treat like things alike, and not to engage in arbitrary discrimination.”
The law does treat like things alike. Any one man can marry any one woman.
“That is why your side is losing the argument.”
Thirty states have ammended their Constitutions. After the Presidents evolutionary flip:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-gay-marriage-position-could-be-problematic-poll-shows/2012/05/11/gIQALY3kIU_blog.html
It is popular on college campuses, in the big cities, and in certain political circles. It is no widely popular in the rest of the country. One black pastor said his congregation would stay home on election day becasue of Obamas changed position.
“The idea behind our constitution is that people should be treated equally, i.e. fairly.”
Equality and fairlness are not the same thing.
“Is this a same-sex couple, or an opposite-sex couple? Are they two women, two men, or a man and a woman? Why the hell does it matter? The story is EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of their genders.”
It matters because two men or two women do not have the ability to produce a new human being. I realize in the afterworld of casual sex, easy divorce, abortion, and throw away children the notion that men and women have a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to the human beings their joining might produce is odd. This anything goes society has produced a lot of human beings that haven’t been much more than an inconvenience. Human life is not held in the same high regard that it once was. But in the world that existed before the self- centered, “me me me” world of today people actually took the proposition of bringing new life into the world very seriously. Marriage they also took very seriously and our cities and towns were much more stable. There was less crime and fewer people dependent on government.
I have nothing against gay couples forming binding relationships and families. I have expressed agreement in former discussion that this is also better for society especially when kids are involved. But those kids don’t spring from this union. They already exist or have been created with a surrogate (Something I’m personally not in favor of because it is an active decision that deprives the child of one parent or both knowingly…a selfish act)
“Tina, do you honestly think that every person who cannot have, or has no intention of having, biological children, and still chooses to get married is somehow behaving irrationally?”
Still looking under rocks for an insensitive mean person?
My position isn’t based on any individuals needs, wants, or intentions. It isn’t based on love or desire to be together. It isn’t based on age or ability to procreate. It is based on the reality that when a man and a woman join together most often the eventual result is children. No other (sexual) configuration has or can have that result. The marriage law is inclusive and equal in this regard whether or not children are or will be produced. The purpose exists for the majority of times when it is likely to happen. Except for the fact that this result is likely (and necessary so that mankind will continue) there would be no need for marriage. We would grow old and die and that would be that.
“…and I think most people would laugh in your face if you said it in public.”
I’m certain they would in the PC world of the college campus. One of the benefits of growing older is you no longer give a rats pattuty (patootie for the older crowd)!
“You are ONLY trying to use this logic to stop gay couples from marrying.”
NO! I am using the argument to PRESERVE marriage as between one man and one woman! That has been the tradition, practice, and the law. That has been the dictionary definition. You don’t get to attack the tradition and attempt to change the definition and law and then call those wanting to keep them the aggressor…its disrespectful and irresponsible.
“Today’s voters may not like the idea, but tomorrow’s voters are extremely supportive of gays…”
This is true. What isn’t known is what it will mean for society in the future. You will be here to witness the outcome and when you are my age I’m sure you will have a story to tell. I hope it turns out well.
“These are emotional arguments. Younger people’s minds aren’t as entrenched in these traditions; the ways we think and feel about men and women are different, the ways we think and feel about marriage are different, the ways we think and feel about gay people and sexuality are different. This is why your arguments don’t really work on us. We see right through them.”
Sure you do you little twirp because you have the benefit and wisdom of the ages at age twenty a couple. My generation was no different and look at the fine mess we made bucking the traditions!
“You’re fighting a losing battle. Which wouldn’t be so bad, if you weren’t hurting people as a result.”
If they aren’t adult enough to handle a difference of opinion then they probably will feel hurt. That is definitely their problem. I have no intention to hurt people; I am simply defending a position I believe is right generally. Good grief Chris. Must I repeat it? Life is not fair. Gays and lesbians don’t have a lock on life being unfair. And ALL of us are responsible for our feelings.
“Nor do any couples who are not married under federal law.”
That is right! My husband and I also can’t get the same benefits that people who work for the government or were in the military get, or as people who work for an airlines, or people who have lots and lots of money. So what?
I can arrange my life so that I will have benefits that suit my life. We live in a free country where we can make our own futures secure.
“Still think it’s silly for a couple to get married when they have no plan to procreate?”
You haven’t made the list of penalties that come with the obligation to one’s children in marriage. Or the benefits of remaining single. Or the list of grievances for the handicapped.
Lists are a dime a dozen. It’s part of what makes life interesting. I imagine the list could grow quite long for couples that have children. Can’t sock away as much of my paycheck as a gay couple without children for trips to ski resorts and the Bahamas because I have to buy braces for one and a special tutor for the other. Can’t drop everything and go on a road trip over the four day weekend unless I can find/afford a babysitter. Yes, I’d love to go to that fancy new restaurant but I can’t afford it AND my child has been throwing up all day in every single room of the house. Or how about retirees that are widowers…they meet and often choose not to marry because she will lose her social security benefits.
Everybody has issues. It’s called life and we each get to deal with the problems and trials that our circumstances create.
“The fact is that the federal government is currently discriminating against same-sex couples in real, damaging ways. They are doing so based on an unequal and illegal standard that is only placed on gay couples, not on straight couples. This is unconstitutional and immoral, and you should not support it. But it won’t last for very much longer.”
Thanks for the commercial. I think we can end this discussion with that.
“Yes, you did Chris. In fact you set out to do exactly that. You have no interest in truly understanding the importance of preserving marriage as between a man and a woman. My position exists in your reality only as red meat to be savaged and shredded…possibly for sport.”
Tina, I understand your argument. The problem is that, as I have made clear, your argument is based on a LOGICAL FALLACY. Of course I am going to tear it apart. The solution for you is to come up with a more logical argument.
It concerns me that you didn’t answer whether you know what a logical fallacy is or not.
“What you ALWAYS miss..the salient point…is that children in gay homes are NOT produced because of a union of the gay couple.”
I haven’t missed this, I’ve explained why this is not at all salient or even relevant to whom we should allow to marry. The children in step-parent homes aren’t produced because of the union of the married couple in that household. Adopted children of opposite-sex married parents aren’t the results of that union. Children raised by infertile couples aren’t the results of their union.
We do not, in any case except gay marriage, bar people from marrying based on whether they have the ability to create biological children.
“There is no “requirement” to procreate. There is the biological truth that procreation can produce a child, indeed, is the very purpose and function for the sex act biologically. Just because this fact doesn’t fit in with your position doesn’t mean you get to ignore it.”
Do you honestly think I don’t know where babies come from? That the “biological truth” of procreation doesn’t fit in with my position? You’re making a strawman argument again.
The “biological truth” of procreation has NOTHING to do with marriage law as it is currently practiced in the United States.
“You continue to think in terms of individuals”
Well, yeah. I’m an American.
But I’ve also given you explanations for why I think society as a whole, including children, would benefit from allowing same-sex marriage. You’ve not only glossed over these reasons, you’ve claimed I haven’t articulated them.
“Marriage Law in this country has always been between one man and one woman. It is law that has been totally accepted without argument for a couple of centuries.”
The appeal to tradition fallacy AGAIN? I really don’t think you know what a logical fallacy is.
“It is the gay community that is demanding/imposing a different standard.”
No, they’re asking to be held to the same exact standard as everyone else. No other type of couple is told that they cannot marry simply because they cannot procreate. Only gay couples are told this. Every other non-procreative couple is legally allowed to marry. You are imposing a double standard.
“Why would anyone, any person, want (or need) to get married?”
I’ve already given you my reasons, which makes this question even stupider than it was the first time. Talk to couples who have married for love, rather than to have children, if you think my position is so uncommon.
“The law does treat like things alike. Any one man can marry any one woman.”
The Supreme Court has ruled gender discrimination unconstitutional, Tina. There must be a reason other than gender for them to bar same-sex couples from marrying. You claim that this reason is procreation, but that’s a transparent excuse, since you are not in favor of banning non-procreative heterosexual marriages. My Sam and Joe example shows that with respect to their ability to procreate, Sam and Joe’s union is EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of their genders.
So clearly, the ONLY justification you have for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, is because they are a man and a woman. Your premise is the same as your conclusion! That’s not logical, Tina. It makes no sense.
“It is popular on college campuses…”
It’s popular among young people as a whole, not just the college-educated. Young people get older and have children of their own, and those children will have even fewer problems with gay marriage. My children’s generation will see people like you the same way that my generation sees those who opposed integration of schools.
Tell me, what tangible good do you think you are doing while postponing the inevitable? Do you think that by keeping gay couples from marrying for another ten, maybe fifteen more years tops, you are really making the world a better place? How?
“It matters because two men or two women do not have the ability to produce a new human being.”
At this point you’re just being willfully stupid. I already made it clear that Sam and Joe do not have the ability to produce a new human being. I didn’t tell you what the reason was. They could be a heterosexual couple, but infertile or elderly. They could be a heterosexual couple in which one or both parties has had an elective procedure to make them incapable of having children. Or they could be a same-sex couple. NO MATTER THE REASON, they are incapable of procreation.
You are making it abundantly clear that your procreation argument is bunk. It’s a smokescreen to justify discrimination.
“I realize in the afterworld of casual sex, easy divorce, abortion, and throw away children the notion that men and women have a moral and legal responsibility and obligation to the human beings their joining might produce is odd.”
This is a total non-sequiter. Allowing gay marriage does not in any way contradict the notion that people have a responsibility to their biological children.
“Marriage they also took very seriously and our cities and towns were much more stable. There was less crime and fewer people dependent on government.”
So you would think that you’d want to encourage more people to marry. I’ve already pointed out that marriage makes fewer people dependent on government. That’s one reason we should allow gay people to marry.
“I have nothing against gay couples forming binding relationships and families. I have expressed agreement in former discussion that this is also better for society especially when kids are involved. But those kids don’t spring from this union. They already exist or have been created with a surrogate (Something I’m personally not in favor of because it is an active decision that deprives the child of one parent or both knowingly…a selfish act)”
Again, you could say the EXACT SAME THING of straight couples who adopt, straight couples who use artificial insemination, step-parents…but you’re not trying to stop any of these couples from entering into legal marriage.
“Still looking under rocks for an insensitive mean person?”
No, I already found one. Your argument is insensitive and mean. You literally just said that couples who don’t want children and still get married are only doing so because they don’t view each other as equals or as honest. That is a crazy, narrow-minded opinion and it’s not backed up by anything.
“My position isn’t based on any individuals needs, wants, or intentions. It isn’t based on love or desire to be together. It isn’t based on age or ability to procreate.”
WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT WHAT
You’ve said this whole time that your position is based on ability to procreate! And now you’re taking that back, and claiming that there is no contradiction?
“If they aren’t adult enough to handle a difference of opinion then they probably will feel hurt. That is definitely their problem.”
This is crazy. It’s not just a “difference of opinion,” you’re depriving them of legal benefits that are rightfully theirs. And you’re saying that’s their problem? That’s just…sick.
“That is right! My husband and I also can’t get the same benefits that people who work for the government or were in the military get, or as people who work for an airlines, or people who have lots and lots of money. So what?”
Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me! You know that you do have the right to apply for a government job? And that when you were younger you had the right to enlist in the military?
Your arguments are getting dumber by the minute.
“You haven’t made the list of penalties that come with the obligation to one’s children in marriage. Or the benefits of remaining single.”
We’re talking about rights! Of course there are advantages and disadvantages of exercising those rights, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK if you arbitrarily grant them to one group and not another!
You could have used the exact same argument to keep blacks out of the military. “Well, there are a lot of dangers involved, so they probably wouldn’t like it anyway. What are they whining about?”
“Thanks for the commercial. I think we can end this discussion with that.”
Yeah, I don’t think there is any point in continuing this discussion further. You are incapable of making a coherent argument on this issue. You constantly use logical fallacies, including circular reasoning, appeals to tradition, and strawman arguments, and you do so even after I carefully explain to you why these arguments are illogical. You accuse me of ignoring points I’ve already made myself. You apply double standards all over the place. And this isn’t just in this debate…you show the same poor logical skills on almost every other issue. I think you need to take a logic class, or join a debate team. You’re just…really bad at this. Your arguments make no sense. They wouldn’t pass muster on a high school paper. And it makes no sense for me to continue debating with someone whose debating skills are so egregiously awful, and who after years of arguing, shows no signs of improvement.
My argument is not based on a logivcal falacy. It is just logic you choose to dismiss. One man one woman produce. That is the foundational truth that cannot be ignored. it is the basis for the need to bind a man and a woman together.
You’ve explained why you believe the state should sanction marriage as between any two people but yours is just a differing opinion not something born of logical creative genious…you ealize you are incredibly full of yourself!
The biological truth of procreation has EVERYTHING to do wiuth why marriage as between one man and one woman should remain the standard! Cart before horse! The circumstances that people find themselves in as a result of death, choice, divorce are personal problems and have nothing to do with the standard or the need for one.
“You literally just said that couples who don’t want children and still get married are only doing so because they don’t view each other as equals or as honest.”
Oh please. What I said is if it were not for procreation there would be no need for marriage at all. I said that a contract would only be needed if people didn’t trust each other. Your PC brain went into overdrive with this one.
It isn’t based on the ABILITY to procreate. A single woman who doesn’t engage in sexual activity HAS the ABILITY to procreate. It is based on the REALITY that most often when aman and a womanengage in sexual activity it will produce children!!! Cart before the horse. A STANDARD! It is not based on emotional or economic need or want. Not on convenience! Not love! Not on circumstance after the fact! One man and one woman produce. The standard excludes no one AND it aims to promote the best possible situation for the yet to be conceived future citizens of the country.
“…you’re depriving them of legal benefits that are rightfully theirs. And you’re saying that’s their problem?”
Excuse me Chris but this drama is a poor excuse for placing responsibility where it resides, not to mention that logic for which you are so fond.
I am not depriving anyone of anything. I did not make choices for these people. I don’t know, frankly, why the state should be involved in deciding benefits for any of us. I am on the side of benefits being provided by individuals for themselves and their families! I am for personal responsibility to provide and pass on what we have to whomever we choose. It is progressive programs and laws that have created these problems. These types of problems effect people that are not gay. They are big government and dependency on government problems. Blaming me is not only stupid but irresponsible…you’d do better to blame yourself for being such a good liberal big government supporter.
“Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me! You know that you do have the right to apply for a government job? And that when you were younger you had the right to enlist in the military?”
Choices, Chris! Our choices determine our circumstances. I wasn’t complaining; I was illustrating the point that we ALL have problems and blessings that are a result of our personal choices.
“We’re talking about rights!”
No you are talking about what you think is a right. marriage is not a right. it is an obligation, like getting a drivers license.
The standard applies to everyone whether they choose to obligate themselves in this way or not. Any one man can marry any one woman, none is forced to marry, and the state encourages it to promote a solid family in case of children. The standard has been largely ignored in the last few decades, precipitating a decline in our society…the kids are not all right (divorce and intentional single motherhood has been devistating).
I’m not in the business of “granting rights” nor should you be. Our rights are pretty basic and God given.
“Yeah, I don’t think there is any point in continuing this discussion further. You are incapable…blah blah blah…..blah insult…blah!
What an arrogant PC wind bag. You have a lot to learn.
Tina, you refuse to acknowledge the circularity of your arguments, the strawman arguments you’ve used, and your appeals to tradition. Fine. These are obvious logical fallacies, whether you want to admit it or not. I can’t explain this to you any clearer than I already have; if you don’t want to see it, then there’s no use trying to convince you any more.
“marriage is not a right.” –Tina
“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.” –Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia
The Supreme Court has upheld marriage as a civil right in dozens of cases, some dealing with interracial marriage, some allowing prisoners to marry…I trust the Supreme Court’s opinion more than yours, Tina. In fact, your opinion is completely irrelevant at this point. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong. I am satisfied enough knowing that, and I won’t comment on this article again.
However the court has not ruled on same-sex marriage.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm
If the court should decide that marriage IS between a man and a woman then civil union would probably become the standard for gay couples. It might also become the standard for widowed couples so they won’t lose their SS benefits!!!
I’d also like our interested readers to consider another position articulated by George Weigel of National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270518/gay-marriage-libertarians-and-civil-rights-george-weigel?pg=2#
Thank you.