David Blankenhorn and I are continuing an exchange about his arguments opposing gay marriage, expressed in an article for the Weekly Standard and in his new book The Future of Marriage. In his latest posts, he has responded here, asking me to identify weaknesses in the case for gay marriage and strengths in the opposition to it, and here, asking whether I agree that society should take steps to increase the likelihood that children are raised by their married biological parents and refrain from taking steps that make that less likely.
These are fair questions and I’ll respond below. But first I want to emphasize something unique and valuable in Blankenhorn’s work. In The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn says he believes homosexuality “is closer to being a given than a choice,” that he “disagrees” with the parts of the Bible that are commonly interpreted to condemn homosexuality, and that Jesus’ teachings are inconsistent with the condemnation of gay people. (P. 210) I’m told that in a recent debate with Jon Rauch, Blankenhorn actually affirmed “the equal dignity of homosexual love.” He also said that he “agonized” over the real harm done to gay couples by prohibiting them from marrying. The debate occurred at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank for religious and social conservatives, which shows he's unafraid to say these things in environments potentially hostile to them.
If there were more advocates on both sides in the mold of David Blankenhorn, we’d have a much more civil and fruitful debate over gay marriage. It would be terrific if gay-marriage supporters would occasionally acknowledge that it’s at least possible (though very unlikely) that some unintended harm might occur if marriage is expanded to include same-sex couples and that not all anxiety about gay marriage arises from base hatred of gay people. And it would be terrific if gay-marriage opponents could at least acknowledge that they are asking gay couples and families to bear the burden of not running that cultural risk.
Having said all that, I’m a bit disappointed by Blankenhorn’s lack of response to my specific criticisms of his argument. I challenged on several grounds his claim that gay marriage in Europe is contributing to a miasma of anti-marriage attitudes. Blankenhorn offers no defense against the criticism that his argument rests on correlation alone and that this is insufficient to show gay marriage has caused anything bad to happen. He makes no response to the observation that non-traditional attitudes about marriage and family life in pro-SSM countries preceded gay marriage and so could not have been caused by gay marriage. He says nothing about how several other long-term and deep systemic factors likely caused non-traditional attitudes about marriage in Europe long before SSM entered the picture. He ignores correlations in countries with gay marriage that cut in favor of the reform (like rising marriage rates). He passes by correlations in countries without gay marriage that cut against his opposition (less respect for women’s equality, less commitment to individual rights, etc., in countries like Saudi Arabia). He still demonstrates no real familiarity with the complexity of the debate on the left over the effects of gay marriage, and particularly the concerns expressed by many marriage radicals that gay marriage will reaffirm the normativity of marriage.
His only response is that there’s nothing new to respond to. He’s a busy man, so I don’t entirely fault him for this. But it seems to me he has left a lot on the table. That’s his right, and like him I’m content to let readers decide whether he has more to answer at the very heart of his empirical arguments.
Instead, Blankenhorn shifts the focus to other issues. He asks me: “Do you believe that both sides have a valid case? And if you do believe that both sides have a case, what do you think is the strongest point on the other (anti gay marriage) side, and the corresponding weakest point on your side?”
As it happens, I’ve already addressed these issues. As for the best argument against gay marriage, I think it’s a Burkean one that emphasizes the need for continuity and stability in longstanding and widely prevailing practices, that presumes against change in such practices, that rejects abstract arguments for reform rather than ones built on actual experience, and that prefers incremental rather than sudden and convulsive change. I think these Burkean concerns can be answered, but they form a powerful critique of gay marriage that pro-SSM advocates have not paid enough attention to.
There are also some ”Bad Arguments for Gay Marriage.” Among these bad arguments are the emphasis many gay-marriage advocates place on the specific legal rights and benefits marriage provides, rather than on the cultural and social importance of marriage; the heavy focus of the gay-marriage movement on legalistic and constitutional arguments, rather than on policy concerns; and the undoubted desire of some marriage radicals to promote gay marriage as a way to undermine marriage and change civilization.
I don’t share Blankenhorn’s view that gay marriage involves a “conflict of goods,” that is, a trade-off in which either accepting or rejecting the reform will cause harm to some widely accepted social good. Many contentious public policy questions genuinely present a case of goods in conflict. The most prominent example would be abortion, which pits the life of the unborn child against women’s autonomy and equality in society.
But gay marriage is not really a case of goods in conflict because it requires no sacrifice of any public good. Here we get to Blankenhorn’s last question to me:
To me, and to many others, the anthropological evidence is overwhelming that the primary purpose of marriage as a human institution is to give to each child born the gift of the mother and the father whose physical union made the child. Do you, Dale, accept that conclusion and therefore do you agree, along with many leading marriage and family scholars and authorities, that our society ought to do what it can to recognize and strengthen that birthright, and refrain from taking any steps that would be likely to (further) damage or weaken it?
Marriage does not have unchangeable a priori “purposes” that fall from the sky or that are derived from either some abstract principle or from religious authority. The purposes of marriage arise instead from human experience, history, tradition, and actual practice. They can and do evolve as civilization changes and as we learn new things. I think Blankenhorn would agree with me so far, though it would be interesting to know if he does not. (Robert George, for example, would not agree with those claims.)
Based on the actual practice and history of marriage in this country and elsewhere, I agree with Blankenhorn that a (perhaps the) central and important public purpose of marriage has been to encourage men and women who make babies to raise their children within marriage. I also agree that public policy should continue to encourage mothers and fathers to raise their children within marriage and should avoid steps that would discourage them from doing so.
Where we differ is that I see nothing in gay marriage inconsistent with this important purpose. Consider Blankenhorn’s argument about how recognizing gay marriages means losing the primary purpose of marriage:
Every child raised by a same-sex couple will by definition be missing either their mother or their father. It is therefore not possible, or at least extremely hard, to believe both in gay marriage and in the importance of this essential cross-cultural purpose of marriage. The two goods are in conflict; we as a society must choose which we think is more important.
The first sentence is a truism but the second sentence does not necessarily follow from it. It is not impossible, and not even difficult, to believe that gay marriage and man-woman procreation and child-rearing can coexist. Gay marriage will certainly not stop men and women from procreating. It will also not stop them from marrying (they’re marrying at higher rates in countries with SSM). And it will not take a single child away from a man and woman who want to raise that child together in marriage.
But if you doubt any of these things, consider Blankenhorn’s argument in the context of marital and procreational practices that are already widely approved. Let’s apply Blankenhorn’s argument to a different context:
Every child raised in a second-marriage family will by definition be missing either their mother or their father. It is therefore not possible, or at least extremely hard, to believe both in remarriage after divorce and in the importance of this essential cross-cultural purpose of marriage. The two goods are in conflict; we as a society must choose which we think is more important.
Or situate the argument in this context:
Every child raised by an adoptive single parent or two parents will by definition be missing either their mother or their father. It is therefore not possible, or at least extremely hard, to believe both in adoption and in the importance of this essential cross-cultural purpose of marriage. The two goods are in conflict; we as a society must choose which we think is more important.
Or how about this:
Every child created through a surrogate mother or sperm donation will by definition be missing either their mother or their father. It is therefore not possible, or at least extremely hard, to believe both in these assisted reproduction methods and in the importance of this essential cross-cultural purpose of marriage. The two goods are in conflict; we as a society must choose which we think is more important.
None of these statements would get much support in our society, and indeed most people would be puzzled by them. They would bristle at the notion that remarriage, adoption, or assisted reproduction means “[c]hanging the meaning of marriage and normative parenthood” or “changes marriage and parenthood overall — not just for the children in” these households “but for all children.” They would see these claims as unsupported, alarmist, and a bit hysterical.
I doubt Blankenhorn opposes all divorce, remarriage after divorce, adoption by couples or even single people, or these methods by which sterile opposite-sex couples make children. I doubt he thinks they undermine the primary purpose of marriage to bring biological parents together to raise their children. If that’s right, what makes the effect of same-sex marriage on marriage any different? The child raised under circumstances of second marriage, adoption, or assisted reproduction is denied its “birthright” to be raised in a marriage of its biological mother and father every bit as much as if it is raised by neither of its biological parents or by only one of them in a gay marriage.
There is an obvious answer to this: that there is something qualitatively different - - and inferior - - about a homosexual couple as compared to a heterosexual couple in these same circumstances. A great many people opposed to gay marriage would say, “Just so.” Does Blankenhorn? Based on what he’s said publicly about homosexuals, I doubt it.
There is another, and better, possible answer that isn’t homophobic. Remarriage makes the best of a tragedy, the divorce of biological parents (or the death of one of them). Adoption makes the best of another kind of tragedy, one in which biological parents can’t or won’t raise their child. Assisted reproduction helps parents who can’t otherwise have children. All of these public policies are a form of satisficing, choosing a second-best but acceptable alternative where the best choice is unavailable. But we would never say that the law should intentionally create any of these circumstances. Gay marriage, on this view, would be intentionally creating a circumstance in which children are raised outside of the married, biological-parents context; it would not merely be satisficing.
The problem for this argument, as I see it, is that large numbers of children are already being raised by gay parents. By the most conservative estimates, about 1-2 million children are being raised by single gays or gay couples in the United States. These children did not fall from the sky into gay homes. They got there by the same processes that cause them to end up in the homes of opposite-sex parents: a prior marriage that fell apart for any of a thousand reasons, an adoption of a child who’s unwanted by her biological parents, and assisted reproduction where the parents can't otherwise have children.
All of these children — whether raised in heterosexual or homosexual households — are “by definition missing either their mother or their father.” We'd prefer that parents never got divorced, that children (especially the sick, infirm, and older children) never went begging for adoptive homes, or that couples could reproduce on their own. But that is not the world we live in. We live in a world where we must make the best of what we're dealt. Gay people live in that world too.
We could go one of two directions with these hard realities. The first is that suggested by proponents of gay marriage. We say, in effect, “When it comes to the welfare of children, gay marriage is a form of satisficing on a par with heterosexual remarriage, adoption, and assisted reproduction. It binds up otherwise broken families, provides a loving and stable environment for kids whose biological parents can’t or won’t raise them, and gives couples who can't have a child the chance to raise one they can call their own.”
The second option is a stark, prohibitionist one. We could forbid gay people to raise children, even their own biological children; we could prohibit them from adopting children; and we could bar them from using methods of assisted reproduction. Then, at least when it comes to children, there would be no need for gay marriage as a form of satisficing. Yes, the prohibitionist approach would entail huge upheaval for these particular children and for their gay parents. It would be heartbreaking. But perhaps it would be worth it if you really believe “the future of marriage” is at stake.
Other than continuing to ignore the dilemma, which a lot people would prefer to do, I do not see a viable and stable third way between gay marriage and prohibition that serves the interests of children being raised by gay people (though of course we could call the gay couple’s relationship something other than marriage).
So at this point I have some questions for Blankenhorn. Does he support the prohibitionist route? Does he believe children should be taken away from their gay parents and placed in foster care until they can be adopted by a loving substitute married man and woman? Does he oppose allowing gay people, either singles or couples, to adopt children? To use the services of a sperm donor or surrogate mother?
If he does not oppose these things, then he necessarily believes these children and future children by the millions should be raised by gay singles and couples who will never marry. Does this not undermine the idea that marriage should be the situs for raising children?
And does he believe the children being raised by gay families would be better off, worse off, or unaffected by the ability of their parents to marry?
In a coming post, I’ll have more to say about purposes of marriage other than the generative one Blankenhorn has recently highlighted.
Hey, Thanks for the crocodile tears, David! We really appreciate it!
"His only response is that there’s nothing new to respond to. He’s a busy man, so I don’t entirely fault him for this"
Oh, gosh, NO! David, we wouldn't expect such a busy and important man as you to actually defend your thesis. That's for interns to do, right?
BTW, anyone else hear about Randall Tobias? He's the guy in the Bush Administration that is in charge of implementing the abstinence and celebacy rule in Africa because we know how well that works. And his contentiont that condoms don't stop any sort of STD. Well, turns out he just resigned, because he was married and hiring south american prostitutes.
Just one more example of how everyone in this administration has the attitude of do as I say, not as I do, and that the rules don't apply to me. Kinda like Wolfowitz, right?
Okay, as a gay -marriage supporter, I will occasionally acknowledge that 'something in the traditional cultural message about marriage' is lost if someone can a) identify what that something is, b) show what actual harm it will cause and c) prove that this harm occured or is occuring in Massachusetts, Canada and Spain.
DC: You’re right, Randy, that the risks of any harm are very remote (I’ve changed the post somewhat to reflect this). It’s possible that some harm will occur, of course, but with every passing day that we have actual gay marriage in the U.S. and around the world without harmful consequences it gets harder and harder to take these fears seriously.
Play this one by yourself.
That doesn't work, so they come up with all this baloney about the children, conveniently ignoring the children of gay parents.
I'll also grant that "not all anxiety about gay marriage arises from base hatred of gay people," and that maybe we gay-marriage supporters should take note of that more often. But there's two sides to this; I'd really like it if gay marriage opponents would acknowledge that a large chunk of support for their cause DOES come from base hatred of gay people. And I'd like the "nothing-against-gays, just-preserving-our-institutions" type of GM opponents to acknowledge, once in a while, that they are a tiny minority on their own side, and that the real political force behind the anti-gay marriage movement is based in widespread moral disapproval of homosexuality.
Is it a deal?
Nothing sweeter than seeing another "family values" hypocrite bite the dust although there are so many of them these days it's hard to keep track.
Even better is his semi-defense that he just hired them for massage, not actual sex. In other words, he's stupid enough to throw his reputation away by hiring prostitutes without even getting the payoff of having sex with them. How stupid is that, especially if those south americans prostitutes look like that Brazilian woman who has a CD for sale at Starbucks?
The thing is, as an advocate of marriage equality, I respond to those who want to defend their ability to make universal claims about the significance and symbolism of marriage by pointing out the potential for beauty and significance that same-sex marriages also embody... the natural equality between the partners, the conscious divisions of labor and roles as befits the individual personalities of those involved, and the creation of families that in some ways transcend biological imperatives toward passing on your own DNA - families of choice who often take in those children who otherwise are rejected by the world. For Christians, the theology of adoption hits home for those of us who acknowledge that through grace we are given the right to call ourselves children of God. So yes, what is lost is a universal symbol that has never really been universal at all - and what is gained is a broader spectrum of what marriage means.
Alright, I'll try one. I don't have empirical evidence concerning this, but it has been my observation, for what it's worth. One thing I have found particularly prevalent in the male (but not the female) homosexual community is a greater propensity toward promiscuity. I have known of several homosexual relationships (some domestic unions with 20+ years under their belt and an adopted kid) which were openly "open." That is, if the opportunity for a worthwhile extra-relationship fling presented itself, there was no problem with one partner so indulging.
One of the "traditional cultural message[s] about marriage," I believe, is fidelity. To the extent that homosexual relationships dismiss with fidelity as a fundamental foundation of the relationship, I believe they do damage to its adherence in heterosexual marriage. I think it goes without saying that it would not be healthy for children to be raised in a heterosexual marriage similarly "open."
Now, you may dispute that deleterious practices of homosexual couples will have any effect on the practices of heterosexual married couples, but I think that is simply naive. As a married man, my relationship with my wife is affected and shaped by the practices of other married couples. I would not make it my practice to be in close friendly association with married men who regularly commit adultery, and my wife would be more than entitled to request that I not. Attitudes rub off, and both prevalent practice and the law are tutors.
My grandparents ran a two motels. If you want to know something about adultery, I suggest you operate a low cost motel for a few months. My mother said that her experience growing up in the motel business is that Italian men cheat on their wives more often than others. (I myself, as a young child, wondered what the 'cheaters' were that my family would talk about. They would rent the room sometime in the afternoon, and would leave after a few hours. You only needed to change the sheets, empty the ashtrays, and wipe down the bathroom, and the room was ready to be sold again)
I think it is naive to think that all or even most married couples today never cheat on their spouses.
So: Perhaps we should limit marriage to all non-Italians, since their cheating undoubtedly rubs off your family and affects that. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Or perhaps we should have a law that if you commit adultery, your marriage MUST end, and you cannot ever get married again. Perhaps that would be the better solution?
However, your solution of refusing marriage to gay couples because your anecdotal evidence shows that some couples, but not all, are 'open' doesn't really fit the problem, does it? Why punish all gay couples because of the few that you know? Or conversely, why not punish all hetero couples because of the way a few Italian men operate?
Finally, I'm just curious: would you make it your practice to be in a 'close friendly association' with a gay couple that is married and faithful to one another?
I agree with your point, basically, but why single out homosexual couples here? I've known straight couples with "open" relationships or marriages. I also know quite a few gay couples who would find such an arrangement unacceptable.
So where does that leave us? If bad examples are a determining factor, then it's my experience that gays and straights share the burden equally.
I've always wondered about this analysis. It is heavily pushed, but it still seems to go in complete contradiction of historical knowledge and a good portion of psychological experimentation. Historically, pure homosexuality or heterosexuality has never been a normal motion for the human race: male/male and female/female sexual relations are fairly well-recorded in most of the older societies. Likewise, there are noted cases of self-identified (very) gay men being choosing to have sex with or being raped by women before. In addition, despite the lack of 'success' in reperative therapy, 'inducing' bisexuality has been shown to be possible without any of the sadistic methods used in RT. Genetics, environmental influences, and upbringing all play a role in sexual preferences, that's for sure (the INAH-3 nerve cluster alone is proof), but that doesn't preclude the opposite action.
That's not to say that choice or lack thereof matters in the argument (there's nothing inherently beneficial about male-female compared to male-male or female-female when we're looking for fun rather than reproduction), but it seems like a foolish choice for the Gay Rights movement to champion. Do they really want to argue that "it's okay, because we can't stop ourselves?"
I go both ways, so it's an actual question here. I understand that sexual identity is more complex that simple orgasm, but it seems like that's an unnecessary extra complexity with no actual additional clarity added.
For one argument, it could be forwarded that self-identified gay men and lesbian women statistically have and enjoy having many times the number of partners that those self-identifying as straight (even in situations where those self-identifying as straight only have male/male or female/female sex). Pure monogamy is even more rare in self-identified homosexual couplings than in straight unmarried couplings. It might be reasonable to conclude that homosexual individuals enjoy long-term relations -- the very sort that marriage creates -- much less than heterosexual individuals, and the numbers suggest that this is to the point where , particularly without the additional benefit of encouraging reproduction. Without a significant and pressing reason to give a damn, I don't see why the government should require itself to register or pay attention to anything.
Those gay or lesbian couples wanting to gain legitimacy from a ceremony really should be looking for a gay-friendly church or generic wedding hall, anyway, and going under the 1st Amendment there -- it's a lot more entertaining than the pure legal version.
And, Cornellian, no one with an ounce of medical knowledge would say that condoms stop STDs. They don't, and can't. They slow STDs, but in most cases the transmission rate remain well over 10% per year of normal use, less if the populace employs spermicidal condoms. Rips, use of expired condoms, vigorous actions, or simple normal permeation are just too common. If you can't serosort the population or encourage less risky behavior, they're useful, but they can't stop STD transmission on a large scale the same as concrete can't stop an EMP.
Also I see that you guys (proponents of SSM) are totally ignorant people. Promiscuity is described as an attribute of male homosexuality in educational behavioral science books but there is no word on promiscuity among italians there.
It *might* be reasonable, but I don't know that there's any proof that homosexuals are *inherently* more promiscuous than heterosexuals.
Maybe I'm off base here, but it seems to me that we attempt to imbue our heterosexual offspring with values of self-respect, sexual temperance and fidelity. Whereas most gay men I know were only taught that what they felt was wrong. No one taught them self-respect, they had to find it for themselves. If today's gay teens were taught to respect relationships as much as their straight counterparts are, would this inclination toward promiscuity change? I don't know.
What explanation do these behavioral science books you speak of offer for such behavior?
I'm not sure we should really go nuts advocating that gay and lesbian individuals should be educated into expressing their sexuality differently than they would without government intervention. There might be a reduction in STD transmission rates to justify it (not assured, since both hetero- and homosexual individuals tend to 'search' for a while before settling down), but that same argument could be used to justify attempts to brainwash 'fresh' individuals who would normally self-identify as gay or lesbian into acting heterosexual and choosing non-penetrative acts to express their homosexuality (the "it's not gay if the balls don't touch" memetic would one be one current example of this). That sounds like absolutely no fun to me.
Note two things about the editor's statements: (1) his acknowledgment that he knows of few gay male couples whose relationship is not "open" to some extent; (2) his belief that it is quite likely that gay marriage could "liven" up the traditional heterosexual institution of marriage.
Concerning the similarly anecdotal evidence about cheating Italians and cheap motel paramours, I doubt such illicit unions were the fruit of openly "open" arrangements. That is, there is a reason why these affairs take place in cheap motels: because there is still a degree of proper shame in adultery. You may think these men are hypocrites, and you are right! But, as Matthew Arnold quipped, "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." There is no similar shame in the homosexual community, no need to either refrain from infidelity or pay the price of hypocrisy.
You may say, "then the heterosexual community should likewise shake off its Victorian ideals and de-marginalize marital 'openness.'" Congratulations, you have just proved my point.
What "signs" are you referring to, specifically? My own experience living in a gay-friendly neighborhood speaks differently. And there's reason to question the notion that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom
"I'm not sure we should really go nuts advocating that gay and lesbian individuals should be educated into expressing their sexuality differently than they would without government intervention."
Again, this assumes that gays are inherently more promiscuous, and that societal conditioning has nothing to do with their behavior. And I think many gay eenagers, looking ahead in their lives, might say that there's more at stake for them than avoiding STDs.
I'm not sure it is. But at any rate, you then go on to quote a prominent homosexual's views on fidelity. I could counter with dozens of expressions to the opposite. A qucik random search, for instance, reveals this blog with a diversity of comments on the topic:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/gay/T0238TC2EAM8VQ9NI
There are many more to be found.
"There is no similar shame in the homosexual community, no need to either refrain from infidelity or pay the price of hypocrisy."
What is your source for this blanket assertion? Do you really believe that there are no gay men and women who value fidelity? I think you'd be wrong...
"You may say, 'then the heterosexual community should likewise shake off its Victorian ideals and de-marginalize marital 'openness.'' Congratulations, you have just proved my point."
Since I would say no such thing, your smugness is a little premature.
"...but that same argument could be used to justify attempts to brainwash 'fresh' individuals who would normally self-identify as gay or lesbian into acting heterosexual and choosing non-penetrative acts to express their homosexuality..."
Um, I think we've tried that--and failed spectacularly.
Ah, but can you find me one example of a heterosexual (or even homosexual, for that matter) saying that he knows of few heterosexual relationships that are not "open"?
"There is no similar shame in the homosexual community, no need to either refrain from infidelity or pay the price of hypocrisy."
What is your source for this blanket assertion? Do you really believe that there are no gay men and women who value fidelity? I think you'd be wrong...
No, I do not believe that "there are no gay men [or] women who value fidelity." I am simply saying that from my observation, and from the observation of others in the movement, fidelity is not, as a whole, valued in the homosexual community to the extent that it is in the heterosexual community.
As a functional matter, it is also understandable that such promiscuity would be inevitable. Generally speaking, men are more sexually aggressive than women. In most heterosexual relationships I've known, it has been the woman that has been the limiting factor in the fact or the frequency of sex. Although, I will tip my hat to the small exception to this rule: women generally sexually peak in their late 30s, early 40s, during which time it is not uncommon for the woman in the relationship to want sex more than the man. But for the most part, men are the far more sexually aggressive. They constitute the overwhelming majority of sex offenders and the overwhelming majority of the pornography industry's consumer base.
Again, in the normal heterosexual relationship, it is the woman that is the limiting factor in the fact or frequency of sex. Once that limiting factor is removed, and the combination is instead two individuals both likely to be sexually aggressive, it is understandable there would be such promiscuity in homosexual relationships.
Moreover, men are far more able to have a detached view of sex, far more likely to have the attitude of "wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" (to the great frustration of countless females for being "used"). This explains the overwhelmingly male consumption of pornography, which treats sex precisely in this manner. It is not surprising in the least that it would be far more likely for a male-male relationship to be "open." I know of many married men who would be very happy to have their marriage "open." But I cannot think of a single married woman I know who would.
Drake:
I think you are missing the point. There is anecdotal evidence that heterosexual couples already engage in high rates of adultery. I, for one, do not see how legalizing gay "open" marriages would have ANY effect on heterosexual marriages.
If you want to outlaw something that may be eroding marriage, out law hourly rate motels, or MTV, or any number of other TV shows that present adultery in an almost flattering light.
In my not so humble opinion, people who point to the slippery slope argument regarding gay marriage are simply looking for an excuse to hate.
As a straight man, I have NEVER ONCE asked myself if I want to cheat on a girlfriend because some of my gay friends may or may not have an open relationship. I model other straight men, because that is what works when dealing with straight women.
Your suggestion that gays will somehow contaminate the concept of marriage is ridiculous.
So: If lesbians are found to be as monogamous or more than hetero couples, then you would have no problems with SSM, at least for them?
But I find all this arguments about whether gays or women or Italians are deserving of marriage to be quite distasteful. I brought up the example of Italian men to show the absurdity of this: A group does not have to "earn" the right to marriage. When SCOTUS overturned the laws against interracial marriage, they didn't look at to whether black men are more or less promiscuous than white men. And perhaps they should have, since I know many people who dislike blacks (people who are racists) claim that blacks are far more promiscuious than whites. You will find that claim even today.
But rights are not granted based on the bahavior of a few, even if demonstrated. Rudy Guiliani is on his third marriage, Liz Taylor on her, what seventh? Should we have a law that prohibits marriage to just one person per life? One divorce? Should we bring back the laws that criminalize adultery?
This might be valid issues, but they have nothing to do with whether *I* should have the right to marry my boyfriend.
Grove: ""There is no similar shame in the homosexual community, no need to either refrain from infidelity or pay the price of hypocrisy."
I don't know if you have any idea how inflammatory this statement is. I remember well that these exact same comments were mmade about blacks not even 20 years ago, and they were said by people who were racsists. To wipe an entire class of people with one derogatory comment made up by you indicates more than just bias on your part. It's something Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell would say.
Also, Gattsuru, you never answered by question: would you make it your practice to be in a 'close friendly association' with a gay couple that is married and faithful to one another?
Amerikan nucular marriage, with its over special legal 1100 privileges, is more un-Biblical than an orgy.
To me, the androcentrism of so many anti-homosexual arguments reveals them for what they mostly are -- post hoc rationalizations that dress up what really just pre-reflective visceral disgust at the the thought on man to man intimacy with a semblance of intellectual respectibility.
It isn't a coincidence that in almost all places where civil unions or gay marriage has been accorded, even temporarily such as in SF, the majority were lesbian couples.
Somehow, there is always a higher standard, always just out of reach of gays and lesbians, that prevents us from getting married. And this higher standard is NEVER applied to hetero marriages.
Probably. Google "open marriage" and see what comes up. I was certainly surprised.
But trading quotes and perceptions about homosexual behavior really misses the point, I think. Certainly there's a strong perception that gay men are more promiscuous. I question the validity of using this as a club to beat the gay community as a whole. If it could be proven that the majority of gay people arte conservative in their romantic behavior, would this change your mind about gay marriage?
Even so, it does seem sort of silly to deny gay men entry into a relationship-stabilizing institution like marriage on the basis that their relationships are allegedly not stable enough without it.
What "signs" are you referring to, specifically? My own experience living in a gay-friendly neighborhood speaks differently. And there's reason to question the notion that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men.
In Massachusetts and Canada (the only culturally similar locations with available data to my knowledge), gay/lesbian marriages per year make up much less than the 3-5% of total marriages yearly that would be proportionate to the population of gay or lesbian individuals. That's true even including the year MA made gay/lesbian marriages legally recognized, which one would expect to have a pretty hefty and noteworthy 'jump' value. Also, despite the complaints of your link, there are more than one study suggesting homosexual men have more partners in a specific timeline than straight couples (Gay men — not unexpectedly — had more sexual partners than heterosexuals, an average of nearly six over the previous three months compared with just under two for heterosexuals with a median just above two sexual partners per year for gay men and significantly under two for straight). Lesbian women are a little more difficult to get numbers in regards for, but from what I can gather, while lesbian women are much less likely than gay men or heterosexual couples to be 'open', they are much more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners throughout their lifetime (that this shows up despite the tendency of heterosexual males to over-report their 'conquests' is kinda impressive).
Speaking from an economics viewpoint, when there's an infinite supply of an item available at low prices, but fewer purchasers than expected, you have a thing called low demand running around.
I don't particularly see a problem with the above attributes. As long as everyone's careful about STD testing and protection, promiscuous behavior is quite entertaining for all parties involved. But it doesn't really give a pressing interest to require government recognition, particularly when it's likely to result in a societal pressure to end up in a relationship that, by the above data, isn't what these individuals want.
Again, this assumes that gays are inherently more promiscuous, and that societal conditioning has nothing to do with their behavior.
We can change the law in ten or twenty years when/if societal conditioning changes. We can't undo damage done by poorly chosen laws for the next ten or twenty years.
Um, I think we've tried that—and failed spectacularly.
One might think I was trying to push a point with that statement, particularly given that I noted reparative therapy with revulsion earlier. Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement is a little different than what I mentioned, largely because I left out sadistic torture and complete lockdown on any same-gender sexual activities, aiming more for the Athens-esque methodology that actually had worked, but that's the sticks.
Randy R.
Also, Gattsuru, you never answered by question: would you make it your practice to be in a 'close friendly association' with a gay couple that is married and faithful to one another?
Hm? Already do, met a pair through work at a restaurant a few years ago. Nice folk, although Clayton's got that pessimistic cynical thing going on that's starting to get to be a cliche these days.
I'm not sure how my experience or willingness to go for said experience matters on a policy debate.
grendel
Yet I've never once heard anyone who advances that argument also accept the converse: since lesbians are (stereotypically) much less promiscuous than even heterosexuals, shouldn't they be more entitled to marry than anyone else?
Few basic reasons. First, it's really not Constitutional to legally recognize a thing under one gender constraint but not the opposite. Secondly, lesbians make up less of the sexually active homosexual population (typically 1/3rd from my memory). Also, like the "lesbian bed death" concept (which ignores that lesbians still tend have a lot of sex with each other even if less then heterosexual women, and are more likely to be sexually satisfied for each 'session'), it seems to be a limited analysis of data rather than a known fact — numbers for life-time samples of lesbian women point toward normal or above-normal numbers of sexual partners.
As for your other points, I'm not sure what the ratio of lesbians to gays has to do with the rights of either one of them. As for your last point, I would like to see a cite. Everything I've seen says the opposite ...
I mean gay men can still marry straight women and lesbian women, gay men have equal access to the institution of marriage, just like right now gay men and lesbian women have equal access to marriage right now. Any gay men can marry any women, he just can't marry a man for lets be completely honest, a marriage with two male will be inherently promiscuous. This inherent promiscuity of two males is against the state definition of marriage, and since it is against the state definition of marriage, it is against the state's goal of marriage, and the state has a right to discriminate to protect such goal. As long as it allows everyone access to the institution, it survives equal protection, for its access to the institution, not all logical combinations of people in such institution that matter. The state has the right to discriminate and say this combination is against the state interest thus we won't subsidize it, we won’t allow it, for this combination is rationally related to a state interest we are trying to promote or discouraged.
I mean every marriage needs a woman in it, else it isn’t a marriage. If there isn't one woman inside a marriage, it will fall apart for it isn't men who are promiscuous, it is actually the fact that woman are anti-promiscuity. Get married to a woman, and suddenly the partner to such woman lose all interest in sex unless it is somehow connected to his wife. Women are the backbone of modern society, they are the glue who holds the family together, and if we don’t have healthy families well then we can’t be good citizens.
I'm not sure what relevance our sex lives have to do with the rights of getting married. A majority of gay men and women want the right, although that doesn't mean that all gay men and women will avail themselves to the right, just as many heteros don't. YOu haven't made a case as to WHY we should be denied the right to marriage. Straight people need only to meet certain minimum requirements regarding age, not already married, not siblings, and they can get the license. Why can't it be the same for gay people? Do you want an affidavit from us at the time of the issuence of the license in which we state that if we ever cheat on our spouse, the marriage become invalid? Would that satisfy you?
One of the earliest reports was the '79 "The Gay Report" by Jay and Young, published in a single volume, book format (available at Amazon). Jay and Young apparently cover a range of issues, promiscuity being one of the more prominent factors covered in some detail.
Robert Spitzer: Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, covers reparative therapy
Scott Hershberger: "Guttman Scalability Confirms the Effectiveness of Reparative Therapy," op cit
You know, I don't actually care what the bible says or doesn't say regarding homosexuality- the bible isn't the basis for secular law anyway.
What explanation do these behavioral science books you speak of offer for such behavior?
</blockquote>
Those books are Behavior Science study books for medical school students. Personally I do not care what is causing the promiscuity in homosexual males, it is a fact of life. So by recoginizing promiscuity as an attribute of marriage it would difinitely harm a marriage.
On the other hand if we prohibit any kind of interpretation of marriage other then union of one man and one woman it would be just great, because no one is going to get hurt.
This is great, this is laughable. You have exactly the same right as every man in the United States. Find a woman and get marriage license.
Why don't you complain that you can't marry a piece of wood.
Bummer.
Now, I was going to respond to your posts, until I saw your stupid last comment. Such plain idiocy and sheer bigotry isn't worthy of a response. End of discussion.
Notice the difference between the above comment I highlighted and this one below.
One person says he recognizes the couple love is one with equal dignity, the other comparing someones love to an inanimate object.
Well its obvious the people arguing for anti-gay marriage are not all the same, some are actually decent human beings with empathy, some obviously lack empathy. Since some people lack empathy they do not realize the rational and logic of other peoples positions for they can't comprehend a mindset that is different than their own. Rational debate is impossible with people who can't comprehend arguments that differ from their own position.
Let's quote the linked article correctly, shall we?
"Gay men -- not unexpectedly -- had more sexual partners than heterosexuals, an average of nearly six over the previous three months compared with just under two for heterosexuals. This figure was skewed by a few gay men who had a lot of partners; the most common number of partners mentioned by gay men was in fact two."
And let's also mention that this was NOT a study of the general population, but rather a survey of sexually-active HIV-positives.
"But it doesn't really give a pressing interest to require government recognition, particularly when it's likely to result in a societal pressure to end up in a relationship that, by the above data, isn't what these individuals want."
Perhaps we could let individuals decide for themselves, rather than second-guess them on the basis of dubious statistical claims.
"One might think I was trying to push a point with that statement, particularly given that I noted reparative therapy with revulsion earlier."
I wasn't referring to reparative therapy.
grendel--
I don't think you meant me.
springjourney--
"Personally I do not care what is causing the promiscuity in homosexual males..."
I don't imagine you do.
Blankenhorn has joined the Right's war on adoptive families, or any other family where the kid's are not biologically related to both of their parents. I think Professor Volokh called this "biological essentialism."
The real slippery slope is not towards polygamy and incest, it's toward the social and legal rejection of all families that do not meet the Right's definition of ideal.
Blankenhorn's arguments put heterosexual married couples with adopted kids in the same social and legal position as gay couples. Blankenhorn's arguments put infertile couples in the same social and legal position as gay couples. Blankenhorn's arguments put remarried couples in the same social and legal position as gay couples.
Since I'm a waiting (and hopefully soon-to-be) adoptive parent, Blankenhorn makes it easy to pick sides in the gay marriage debate. He's making that decision easier for a lot of others, too.
The anti-marriage arguments Blankenhorn makes are the true threat to millions of American families.
I am crying. Sorry I have hurt your.
Marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Sex life has only indirectly related to marriage because it is not mandatory. Also general non-religious public does not give a s..t about someone's sex.
What is important though, that you are trying to force me to pay for success of your sexual life by elevating your personal feelings to some kind of special right.
I assume you also are complaining about how much you have to "pay" for the success of all those heterosexual sex life? Or do you have a double standard, you shed tears for homosexuals but are indifferent to heterosexuals?
What is your definition of the ideal? Or is there no such thing, in your view?
* * *
I'm still waiting for Dale Carpenter to make his list of the good reasons not to merge same-sex coupling with marriage recognition.
So far I do not think he shows he has understood the argument he keeps saying he disagrees with.
Absolutely not, I am ready to pay even more, not for sex but for the future of a strong country that can protect itself by providing optimal environment for upbringing new generations.
I am ready to pay my money not just for new children that have raisen in chaotic gay families, but for new members of our society that understand why it is important not to destroy a marriage, way of our life and our free society.
Heather doesn't have a father not because her mommies are homosexual -- but because neither of her mommies can stand the thought of having a man around the house being a Daddy.
And because mommie doesn't much like men, little Heather has to trade her father for a second mother. In short, Heather is the one paying the price for her mother's inability to relate to the opposite sex.
Sounds like gender bias to me. A cruel thing to inflict on a little kid.
Sure, it's better for an orphan to be adopted by two women than it is to be adopted by only one, or none.
But neither is one, or none, a "marriage", anymore than two women can be a marriage. One left shoe beats no shoes, and two left shoes beats only one. But they still aren't quite a "pair of shoes" to the kid who has to walk in them... are they?
The metaphorical possiblities are endless.
Only for the person who does not know what is the purpose of shoes.