Conor Friedersdorf, guest-blogging at Megan McArdle's site poses it:
An 8-year-old goes to play at the house of his friend, who is raised by two lesbian women. The environment is a loving one. So this playmate, whose straight parents are married, is going to absorb one of two possible norms.
1) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents are married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, they get married. (I hope I get married one day.)
Or
2) My friend lives in a happy home. His parents aren't married. When people grow up and love each other, and want to have kids and a happy home, sometimes they get married like my parents. Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents. (One day I may get married and have kids, but maybe I'll just have kids and live with the person I love.)
Friedersdorf's question: Which option, as a conservative, would you prefer to see?
I realize that your first preference might be "women will form relationships with men, not other women, so my 8-year-old won't see such relationships." But that preference is not realistically attainable, even if same-sex marriages are prohibited. (It's true that the majority of women who have relationships with women are in some measure bisexual, but it's a fair bet that the law isn't going to much influence women's decisions on the subject these days or any days in the likely future.) Your second preference might be "lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or have children through artificial insemination," but that too seems highly unlikely regardless of the state of same-sex marriage law. Just as with alcohol consumption, sexual promiscuity, marital disintegration, and the like, many options are off the table given the limits to what law can do, and the limits to what laws are likely to get enacted. Your third preference might be "I won't let my child play at his friend's house, because he'll be exposed to an immoral living arrangement," but I sure hope it won't be, given how cruel it would be to your child and to his friend. (And would you then do the same as to your child's friends whose mothers are living with their boyfriends, or engaged in other forms of what you see as sexual misconduct?)
So it really does come down to encouraging choice 1 and encouraging choice 2 -- and our duty, as thoughtful citizens, to try to choose the best public policies given the suboptimal options we have. Which choice do you think best fosters a pro-marriage mentality on your child's part, even if you think it's extremely likely that your child will himself grow up straight?
Not too many (openly) gay parents, either, but there's more chance of that than of unmarried heterosexual parents.
It is not correct to reduce it to the two aöternatives.
Children can easily understand that child-loving lesbians may be nice, but are not the norm as parents.
I wouldn't let my child play at the house of a friend whose parents were drug addicts, even if they took "good" care of their child. I wouldn't let my child play at the house of a friend whose parents swore constantly, even if they took "good" care of their child. I wouldn't let my child play at a house that was filthy, or had bad manners, or constantly served unhealthy snacks. I wouldn't let my child play at a house where the parents smoke in front of their children.
Even absent some apparent danger, I would not want my child around adults who display what I consider poor morals, habits, or choices.
Children are not steeped in bigotry. They will see happiness and love and assume everything is fine -- as it is.
Perhaps it's not "the norm" in the strict statistical sense, but then, neither is having green eyes, which is exactly the way in which children view the issue: people are different, but a happy household is a happy household.
3) Explain to your child (without any irony or shame): "I know those people seem good and loving. But you should not mimic their lifestyle choices unless you want to eternally burn in a Lake of Fire. Now go sing 'Jesus Loves the Little Children' with your dad and then go to bed."
And if they don't, well then we can always bombard them with "Heather has two mommies" until their attitudes are engineered to our liking.
Please. You are mindreading children, now?
I wonder why on earth the kid's parents would let him visit a "disorderly house" whose occupants are lewdly cohabiting.
That's a third norm.
It is perfectly possible for parents to control their children's associations and those who fail to do so (the weak and lazy) are the main reason children's development averages so suboptimal these days. (Proof of suboptimality - attire, language, illiteracy, knowledge level, tattoos, etc.)
This is why parents homeschool, btw.
Would your feelings be any different if the women were simply roommates, like Kate and Allie?
And if so, how is your child going to know whether the women in question are romantically involved or not?
Also: what exactly are you afraid will happen to your child if it so happens that he does discover that the pair are romantically linked? Do you think homosexuality is a transmissible disease? Are you afraid that he will grow up insufficiently disdainful of homosexuals?
I speak as one opposed to the judicial imposition of gay marriage rights, or to any judicial finding that homosexuals are a suspect class; but one must give logic its due.
Really, how would a child know whether or not a friend's parents were married or just cohabiting, regardless of sexual orientation?
Don't you believe you should control your children's friendships? This is quite the mod notion. Whence cometh it?
I think you're being irresponsible.
It's like people who send their kids to government schools and let government employees manage their social, spiritual, and intellectual lives. What irresponsibility.
Do you really plan to outlive them and keep them home and cocooned forever?
Let's alter the paradigm. A cannibalistic headhunter from the Chilean Andes moves into your neighborhood. Would you let your children go play with his? Would you draw the line concerning his behavior if neighbors began disappearing?
Is society changing because acceptance of the homosexual life style is a free choice or is it being forced down the throats of the people by control freaks masquerading as judges? Have the judges forgotten their place and to whom the judges owe allegiance and from whom the judges derive their authority in toto?
One who follows the Christian Bible must necessarily say no to any association with persons committing acts that are immoral? These acts include immoral heterosexuality and homosexuality.
As to the "unmarried" couple raising their children, are they REALLY unmarried or only unmarried according to the state, an entity that should not be in nor should have been involved in marriage? Are they married in God's eyes because they have made a proper commitment to each other? Most recognize that the state's purpose is in dealing primarily with property.
Does society REALLY have a compelling interest in forcing everyone to be, think, and act the same? I hope not. Again, so long as what I do does not impinge on others without the others permission, I should be free to live my life as I see fit.
As a libertarian once remarked, your rights end at your nose. My rights end at my nose.
I think you miss the point of the conservative critique of gay marriage in several ways.
Children, you know, are capable of thinking more than one thing at once. So the kid in situation number 1 could think both (a) "These people are married. They seem happy. I want to be married some day"--which is something conservatives want to encourage in the abstract, and; (b) "The sexuality of married couples does not matter. These people are as happy as my parents. Happiness is good. Therefore, gay marriage is good."
This is the second time you have casually equated the happiness of a same-sex couple with social good. I gather you think same-sex marriage approaches Pareto efficiency. Perhaps it does, but you are not being responsive to the conservative critique. That critique is that gay marriage comes with a cost that outweighs the good it does. I see no way of considering the conservative view of that cost in this model.
For instance, a well-instructed conservative child in situation number 2 might very easily add on "Other times they don't get married, like my friend's parents," by saying "because marriage is not only about love and happiness, but also about other ideas we want to protect by limiting it to men and women. But I'm glad my friends' parents love each other."
You need to deal with the conservative view of marriage on its own terms. Conservatives do not want to encourage their children to think of marriage in the way your question is designed to make them. Nor do they think altering the institution of marriage is without social cost; they think that cost is simply diffuse. But diffuse does not mean small.
I think their case is hard to make, as most Burkean claims are. But I think this question's pretty lame. I guess your hypothetical child #2 never asks his parents why some people get married and others don't? And why would conservative parents of child #1 be pleased to learn that their kid doesn't know the difference between two types of marriage, the one they think is good and the one they think is bad?
Isn't that part of my responsibilities as a parent to find out about my child's friends' parents before letting him visit their house?
I find homosexuality amoral. I believe it is my duty as a parent to not expose my child to amorality until he is old enough to understand why it is amoral. I'm not "afraid" of anything happening to my son, any more than I am homo"phobic".
I am not sure though how relevant this is for the younger kids. The problem I see is that there are a lot of families that look good on the outside and not so good on the inside. Indeed, I have seen more than one case where the mother appears overly nice to the kids just to maintain the fiction of the happy family. So, I don't put a lot of stock in the appearance of a happy family in determining where to allow a kid to visit - though I would have second thoughts about an unhappy family. But then, again, I wouldn't keep a kid from visiting a family with same sexed parents, wether married or not.
WM, I hear they moved UCLA out of Manhattan at some point, so EV might be out of touch.
Here in Philly, the unmarried private school parents are legion. We have post-divorces, widow/ers and all manner of rich hippie types (at the Quaker and alt schools). The real scandals are the moms who don't take dad's last name.
Do you plan on exposing your child to violence, sexuality, pornography, alcohol, smoking, crime, etc. intentionally just because you think your good example is stronger than temptation?
That sort of thinking is, in my mind, essentially refusing to be a parent. The "I don't need to control my child" line of parental thought is why I quit teaching. As parents, yes, we do need to control our children, and, contrary to what you appear to be assuming, that control slackens as the child ages and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, matures.
You must lead a very lonely life. Where do you find anyone who doesn't commit "acts that are immoral"? Didn't Jesus seek out people who committed "acts that are immoral"?
(There was a question mark at the end of the sentence I quoted. It looked like a typo. If it wasn't, I apologize.)
Preference 1: Agree. Wanting children to not see lesbian relationships isn't going to make them go away.
Preference 2: This is where it gets ridiculous. Passing laws outlawing homosexual adoption isn't 'off the table' simply because you don't like them. You could have easily avoided this by presenting Preference 2 as "laws stopping lesbians from getting pregnant and not having children are off the table" because they genuinely are (I don't think anyone is proposing legally limiting pregnancy, and I presume it would never be found constitutional)- in other words, lesbian parents are here to stay. But your reasons why are incorrect.
Preference 3: "Hoping' that a preference is off the table doesn't make it off the table. This was frankly a bizarre statement "I hope you don't choose 3, therefore 3 is unacceptable."
Furthermore, it is entirely conceivable that a parent may ban his kids from playing with the children of parents they disapprove of. Are parents drug users? Are parents exceptionally slovenly? Exceptionally ill-tempered? Watch R-rated movies while the kids are at home? etc etc. Parents make decisions as to their children's environment all the time. Some, you may not approve of. They aren't logically obligated to please you in their decisions in terms of playmate approval. And a thought experiment shouldn't depend upon your having veto authority over other parents' child-rearing decisions.
Preference 3 a. "And would you then do the same as to your child's friends whose mothers are living with their boyfriends, or engaged in other forms of what you see as sexual misconduct?" Maybe. Maybe not. That would be up to the particular conservative, wouldn't it? What does this have to do with the thought experiment? Are conservatives only allowed to raise their children in what you consider to be logically consistent ways? Are parents obligated to value (or dis-value) unmarried heterosexual relationships in the exact same way they value (or disvalue) homosexual relationships? See above. Your thought experiment shouldn't depend upon your having veto authority over other parents' child rearing decisions.
Conclusion: "So it really does come down to encouraging choice 1 and encouraging choice 2" No, it doesn't.
Now, as for logical inconsistency.
"So it really does come down to encouraging choice 1 and encouraging choice 2 -- and our duty, as thoughtful citizens, to try to choose the best public policies given the suboptimal options we have."
Even given the flaws in limiting it to choice 1 and choice 2 (mentioned above), this statement fails because it neglects to apply the same rules to your viewpoint as to your opponents. You could also equally apply the same logic to your proponents
Would you propose: "Many options are off the table"-like passing SSM-"given the the limits to what laws are likely to get enacted." "It is our duty, as thoughtful citizens, to try to choose the best public policies given the suboptimal options we have" and propose choosing between 1) no SSM or 2) Civil Unions?
If your own logic can't apply to your own argument, it really can't apply to your opponents', either.
You are generally pretty level headed. It is clear that SSM is a subject in which you lose that level-headedness.
I've said it before. SSM is coming, not necessarily because the people want it. Its coming because the elites want it, and they are in the process of building the rhetorical background necessary to force it.
Sk
Wow, I never knew until now that not only is being gay an indication of degenercy but that gays, in fact, have no morals at all. Or is just that you haven't gotten to the amoral/immoral chapter in that home schooling text book you're using?
Children could also easily view the issue as, "Where's the daddy?"
Prufrock and Boyd: No need to check civil union or SSM status. It would be easy enough to tell based on whether both women (in this case) roommates hold themselves out as both being the child's "mommies". Roommates don't normally do that.
I also think Eugene underestimates the extent to which parents will endeavor to keep their children away from houses where they consider immoral/inappropriate behaviors to be being modeled. I'd certainly do that in this case - I am sure the other child would be welcomed into our home, but I'd be uncomfortable letting my child into theirs. I have no problem extending this principle to family members either. Aunt and Uncle are welcome to visit, but I'm not sending my kids to stay at their house if alcoholism is a major issue for them. (Yes, for the record, that does mean I consider living a homosexual lifestyle and alcoholic behavior to both be immoral.)
Sk
Besides, I think the point is about people who willfully and persistently commit immoral acts, or who chose to live their life in an immoral manner. I might lie once, or I might lie every other sentence I say. The former makes me a sinner just like everyone else, but the latter makes me a shady character who you probably don't want to exert any sort of influence over your kids.
Best comment so far.
No, it wasn't a happy childhood, but it was clear to me my parents' relationship was unhappy largely because they were fearful of being "outed" or found out by the yokels in the neighborhood and at work, and they descended into alcoholism as a result. And yes, people were unhappy enough with this situation to instruct their children, my would-be friends, not to play with me (not just not visit my house, but preferred that I not be in their houses, either b/c I'm that kid from the lezbo house). But all this did was alienate and shame me, and by extension confirm my parents' suspicions about the narrow mindset of their neighbors. In short, the conservative mindset was the very source of their unhappiness and to a large extent my own due to the consequences.
Now to the so-called conservative critique: I have to date never observed a conservative critique of gay marriage. A critique is by definition a thoughtful, usually analytic argument. All conservatives have against gay marriage is a tantrum: "it will weaken the sanctity of marriage!" How exactly? There's never any answer to that follow-up, just the cyclical argument that marriage is between men and women, so if male-only or female-only marriages take place then marriage isn't marriage anymore. If you counter that giving gay couples the exact same legal and economic consequences of male-female marriage but give it another name--unions, whatever--they aren't happy with that. Not good enough. We just cannot extend the same rights to gays, because that might signal that they're somehow equal in the eyes of the law. That might portend the end of all of Western civilization...
The Republican party should drop its anti-gay stance like its going out of style (because it is).
Transformational evangelism Jesus practiced? Are you referring to the healing of the centurion's lover or his promise of blessings to sexual minorities?
Many of us will not put similar restrictions on our kids, and our kids will interact with your kids. Would you rather that our kids see models of stable married life (and then tell your kids about them) or stable non-married life (and then tell your kids about them)?
But to tell a child that he can't go over to a friend's house because the friend's parents are lesbians (or are unmarried or worship idols)???
Like Roman tax collectors? Jesus spent plenty of time with people "willfully and persistently commit[ted] immoral acts. . . ."
Now, if the anti-gay folks were only reasonable... So what are you going to do when one of the families you approve of moves away, and the other one goes on vacation?
Seriously, do you have a Play-Date Application Form? Non-smoker, check. Heterosexual, check. No guns in the house, check. First marriage, check. (Don’t want anyone who fits the Biblical definition of adulterer, right? That’s one of the Big Ten.) Goes to the right church, check. (Can’t have just any old Christians.) How many pages?
I hate to break it to you, but every parent in your neighborhood is a sinner. There’s even one that doesn’t obey the “Love your neighbor” rule. Was a time in this country when evangelical Christians were “not the norm,” and were persecuted for worshiping the wrong way. Jesus didn’t. See: tax collector, Samaritan, adulteress. Irony alert.
Aultimer, I guess I was unclear. The Manhattan private school reference relates to me; the Mayer Brown reference to Prof. Volokh. I really don't believe that either of us encounters unmarried cohabitants with children in our accustomed social circles on a regular basis, so I think the hypothetical is unpersuasive. And, by the way, divorcees and widow(er)s don't qualify as "unmarried cohabitants with children." Neither do married women who don't take their husband's names.
P.S. I just can't let this issue go ... Trust me, parents can set a lot of bad examples for their kids, and kids can pick up bad habits like smoking, doing drugs, promiscuity, bad language, etc. from their parents (or other role models). But parents (and other role models) do not teach kids to be gay or straight. So rest easy, if your kid happens to have a teacher or coach who is gay, or happens to attend a birthday party thrown by a gay parent, your child is no more or less likely to end up gay or straight (though your child may end up more tolerant; whether that is a good or bad trait is for each parent to decide).
Some conservatives, such as myself, are more concerned at the Courts deciding what is truly a cultural/voter issues and the unnecessary baggage that brings.
Seems are rather sophomoric stunt for some of the authors on here to equate any opposition surrounding same-sex marriage as bigoted bible-thumpers out of hand. About as sophomoric as posing a college-freshman level 'moral puzzler' as a serious framing of the issue I guess. Which, assuming the example is before wide-spread legalization of SSM, how many kids as a percentage of the total child population are actually going to be running into said situation? A plurality big enough to shift traditional (to this point) understanding of marriage?- highly doubtful. And if the example assumes this situation after the adoption of SSM, than what the child is seeing is now a 'traditional' marriage. In essence, it's another glib bromide that simply boils down to 'Hey, don't be a meanie:(. What a great way to make important cultural decisions.
Eugene, you missed the correct response. The correct response is to teach your child to not taunt the poor friend whose parents are homosexuals. That is considered rude. Also, you can work with them, be friendly with them at school, but don't allow the children to go over that house.
Eight year olds are too young to be dealing with abberant sexuality.
I'm under 30, closer to Republican than not, but this is one of the main issues I have with the R's. There are some things worth fighting for: is preventing two adults from getting married really one of them?
If homosexuality is, indeed, amoral (I would support this proposition) then you should not care about exposing your children to it. Perhaps you think that homosexuality is immoral? In that case, go ahead and keep your children away from these agents of the devil lest their souls be corrupted. I doubt you think homosexuals are amoral (completely lacking in morals)? Somehow that doesn't quite match my personal experience.
I don't think porn is dangerous in the sense that you mean (unless you do truly mean the danger of, to pick a word, corruption), but it would be wrong to not let my kid go to a house where the parents have porn on the TV or coffee table?
And yes, immoral, not amoral, thank you.
"The Same-Sex Kobayashi Maru. How interesting."
Heh, indeed! But I'd call it same-sex War Games - the only way to win is not to play, ie, not permit the situation to occur in the first place.
It occurs to me that this hypothetical has a lot in common with non-abstinence sex education arguments, condom distribution in schools, etc, etc; the one side argues from a humanistic standpoint, and is most concerned with mitigating the negative consequences of 'sinful' acts; the other argues from a Godly standpoint, and is most concerned with the spiritual consequences of those sinful acts (mitigating the physical consequences is, in fact, counterproductive, because it leads to a larger absolute number of sinners). And never the twain shall meet; for Prof. Volokh, legitimizing gay marriage would lead to happier, healthier gay relationships and more stable families, and should be condoned; for me, 'happier, healthier gay relationships' are a negative, because they encourage more people to form those relationships.
Would you forbid your children from associating from a child whose parent committed adultery? Have you? I'm just curious about how uniform you are in your sin avoidance strategy, and how effective it is.
Personally, I think that marriage and stable families are important to society (which is why many folks think I'm a conservative, although clearly I'm not by the standards of most commenters in this thread). SSM reinforces stable families and puts societal structures in place that encourages long term relationships. It also puts a legal structure around the creation and dissolution of those relationships, which is regrettable, but necessary.
If you guys love the family and marriage so much, how about demanding your politicians end no-fault divorce? The silence on that issue suggests that many of the conservatives here hate gays more than they love marriage. Britney Spears and Liz Taylor have done more to damage marriage than a thousand gays.
Okay, assuming sulfuric acid isn't corrosive, do try to keep with the hypothetical that it's just as drinkable as water. Sheesh.
Or, assuming an elephant isn't several tons, do try to keep with the hypothetical that they can be carted in the back seat of your prius.
Anticipating the argument that the sodomy is "invisible" to the child, that doesn't work because the SSM is likewise invisible unless you consider the simple fact that two women were cohabiting to raise a child damning in-and-of-itself. Perhaps they are just friends that have banded together to raise their children because the husbands died? How is that distinguishable from the case of them being married (either in law, or in their minds)?
Actually, that's not a bad philosophy for a pluralistic society, especially on a topic about how to explain different moral views to children.
Why not? And shouldn't we study that more? And if law is so ineffective at social conditioning with respect to sex roles, then why not get rid of all sexual harassment law and Title IX?
First, there are numerous cohabiting heterosexual couples. A child may current visit a friend's home with cohabiting heterosexual parents and reach the same conclusion.
Second, there are serious doubts that a child would necessarily know the marital status of the parents. It may come up, to be certain, but it requires yet another step in the analysis. As sub-parts to this, a couple may call themselves "married," even if not sanctioned by the State, in a civil ceremony.
Third, it elevates the form of a friend's parents' relationship to that of one's own parents. I think most children are inclined to adopt their own family structure (e.g., children of divorced parents are more likely to see divorce as a "normal" option, etc.). It seems highly implausible to construct a scenario where another's parents, while potentially "normalizing" the scenario, is likely to be placed on equal footing with the own child's parents' relationship.
The dilemma, instead, would be as follows: "Would you like your children exposed to a greater or lesser number of couples who bear the title of 'marriage'?" I think children are always going to be exposed to a given number of cohabiting, non-married couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, just as they'll likely encounter a number of divorced parents, single parents, grandparents functioning as parents, and the like. This question, though, is far more of a trap than an intellectual exercise.
Ahh... but that isn't what will happen. Instead, they'll keep playing to it while it remains a net positive (a few more years), then, as it gets normed, just use it as a dog whistle for their base (for example, no 'preferences
' for gays, no 'San Francisco' values etc.) while keeping it just safe-enough for those not filled with hate to vote for them.
Y'know, just like race! That way, all the libertarians and conservatives can claim to vote for the party of Lincoln, blah blah blah Byrd was a member of the KKK blah blah blah Reagan's choices of words and speech locations were an accident etc. ad infinitum while ignoring their co-voters who don't like the 'welfare queens' or 'crime' and want to 'close the border'.
What that says about me, and what it says about those making the comparison, speaks volumes.
On a separate note, Lex does try, and I appreciate that, to make a logical "conservative" argument, when he says:
The problem I see is that I am willing to be responsive to the conservative argument and to consider the costs that do outweight the good, but in all these years I've been reading the arguments for and against civil unions/SSM, I can never get to see someone actually stating what the costs are. Even Lex, who seems to really try to engage in this discussion, can only say that those costs are diffuse, but not small. How do we know if they are big or small? What are they, please tell us, so we can address them in a responsive manner.
Everybody, or at least those people that can agree that gay families need a minimum of stability and rights (medical decicions, for instance), can point out to some benefits, and some good that come out of civil unions/SSM, and those benefits can be quantified. We can disagree on the nature or limits of the benefits, but most people would not say "I don't want gay couples to be able to make medicical decisions on behalf of their partners" . So we have one side of the column, but we never get to the other side: the costs, those diffuse costs that people talk about but can never define.
And soo the conversation never gets to the point where we all can be logic about it, on one side we have people talking about quatifiable benefits, and on the other about unquantifiable costs.
As a gay person, I am willing to settle on a position where the social good of civil unions/SSM equals or exceeds the social costs, but until someone is willing to state what the costs are, and engage in a good faith debate, all I can see is prevarication, and at some point I have to doubt the good faith of the other side.
But in fact, homosexual and lesbian "marriages" are one additional (perhaps penultimate) attack on marriage as a fundamental institution. By further separating marriage from its primary function -- child rearing -- allowing such marriages reduces understanding that the primary reason marriage and kinship are important in society is to allocate responsibility for the rearing and support of children.
Both statistics and personal experience suggest that the "marriages" and domestic unions of lesbians and homosexuals are even less stable than the current marriages and cohabitations of heterosexuals. This all suggests to me that the latest attempt to once again redefine marriage will have the same effect as all the previous reforms, e.g., no-fault divorce. The end result will be a further weakening of the institution that human beings relied on (with very few exceptions) throughout our specie's existence for reproducing the next generation of society. This is not something that is suited for blithe experimentation.
As for children not being bigoted, I would suggest that one of the most homophobic environments in the world is the junior high school locker room.
A same-sex marriage is like defining a tail as a leg--so how many legs does a horse have?
We are fast reaching the point where nothing short of overthrow of the current homophilic (or is it homoserviant?) power structure is going to solve these problems.
I would like my children to understand that marriage is a tremendously important concept, and that it has a specific meaning. Legitimizing gay marriage in order to expose children to more married couples is like wanting your children to obey the law and facilitating that by legalizing as many crimes as possible.
And yes, Britney Spears and the rest of liberalism's poster class (Hollywood) has done enormous damage to marriage.
What about divorced parents? Am I lacking in morals, upbrining, or love because my parents split 25 years ago? Are they worse parents than other people's parents because they didn't stay married? After all, I'm a woman who was raised, mostly, by a man... heaven only knows what that does to my concept of proper gender roles.
Are you comparing my father's raising of me to trying to stuff an elephant into the back of a Prius?
You think you're being sarcastic, but that really is the problem. A great many sins make people temporarily happy. It's like trying to keep your kids off drugs when everyone around them is smoking weed with no apparent consequences.
Your comment reminded me of the couple, miserably married for 60+ years, who when asked why they stay together, answer "we're waiting for the kids to die."
Agreed - I would like to hear a specification of this as well.
Further, if there are such costs, it would seem to invalidate the claim being made here that allowing one's child to play with a friend being raised by lesbians poses a dilemma for conservative parents. That's because the child himself will, on the average, pick up on the "fact" that there's something "wrong" with his friend's parents, etc.
Of course, if it turns out that there's truly nothing systematically different about SSM households, then there is a dilemma for conservatives of exactly the kind put forward here.
That you would compare two empirically testable concepts—the corrosiveness of acid and the weight of an elephant—to a social concept which states homosexuality is evil proves that religious objection is based on hate and fear and not on logic and the freedom of your fellow man. That you think it is the state’s job to impose your moral vision on your neighbors confirms that you a deeply hateful, manipulative and morally bankrupt person.
Just because some people make an okay life for themselves outside the traditional social structures (marriage, neighborhood, formal and informal social institutions) does not mean that life outside those institutions is the same or equal for every significant purpose as life within them. Social structures like monogamous marriage in the West are evolved institutions, they have their current shape because they are a product of history and evolving culture and they serve a number of purposes - the discourse of the welfare state and the destruction of the Black family demonstrates this. Patterns of life outside traditional social institutions have also evolved into their current form. Culture matters. Suddenly treating gay relationships the same as marriage, and insisting they are just the same as evolved, heterosexual marriage, when there's no evolutionary track record to similarly shape and form the institution, does not make it the same institution. You can't make a beaver into a platypus by taping on a duck's bill. Social institutions evolve like animals and attempting to suddenly change the bedrock social institution of marriage by fiat will not make gay marriage suddenly the same thing as the evolved institution of marriage, any more than reclassifying a fish as a canine will suddenly cause the fish to start barking and chasing cars. Though you can certainly damage the fish by throwing it into traffic and telling it to bark, just as it will screw up your dog's head when he sees you try to walk the fish. The bottom line problem I have with the ongoing controversy is the top-down attempts to impose gay marriage. I think my man Hayek would probably object to central government re-ordering of social institutions, but if voters want to enact it, fine - this is a social question best answered by the voters' representatives or the voters themselves. I'm against tampering with fundamental building blocks of society unless there's a strong majority in favor of change, but I'd settle for majority votes, since votes can possibly be undone to some extent if we go disastrously wrong.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4573
You're confusing divorce with homosexuality. I didn't say divorce was immoral. It isn't. It serves no one's interests to force people who hate each other to live together. Homosexuality, however, is immoral. And I ain't no christian.
Robert Porter wrote,
Again, you make the common mistake of assuming, without basis, that only religious people think homosexuality is wrong. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a simple, nearly mathematical matter of biology. Homosexuality is wrong. Period.
It's not the state's job to comment whatsoever on sexuality and homosexuality. On the contrary, they have no business recognizing it at all, let alone rewarding it. As a private citizen in this case, I am completely free to be polite and civil to homosexuals, but no force of government can make me pretend that there isn't something wrong with it.
It's the homosexual lobby that want to use government force, not me.
If my child is gay, would I rather that he/she enters into a relationship and lifestyle that looks as close to mine as possible, or into some other arrangement?
For me, that's an easy question to answer. And my guess is that anyone who can even contemplate having a gay child (of course, there are those who can't even imagine that possibility) gets to the same place.
It's unpersuasive to use one flawed argument to expose another.
The only thing that upset them -- very greatly -- is the notion of homosexuality.
To these people, all gays are on par with drug addicts, abusers, and the lowest levels of society. All other issues pale by comparison, and nothing, I mean NOTHING, will disabuse them of this notion. You simply can't talk to them, because they're hearts and minds are closed. Just try to tell them that there are good people who happen to be gay, and they will say no gays can be good people.
These people are the first, of course, to deny that they harbor any anti-gay bigotry. "It's just the truth!" they exclaim, even though they haven't met are real gay person in their entire lives. Or at least gotten to know them.
Of course, they claim that they just have high morals. Indeed. But morality stops at sexuality. They have no problems with adulterers, divorced people, heterosexual people who commit sodomy, thieves, corrupt people, liars and whatever. These people are okay -- as long as they are hetero.
And so, the very worst sin, the very worst, is homosexuality. Once you identify as gay, there simply is nothing you can do, except try very hard to become hetero. And if you fail, well too bad!
Of course, the Ten Commandments didn't list it, and Jesus said the only real commandment is to love one another, but for these people, their Bible has a big asterick at the end of that sentence, and it reads "...except for homosexuals. Those people you can shun, abuse, deny rights to, and hate, and do so with the confidence that you are morally superior, and are doing My Work."
Yup -- it's clear here that the biggest fear that the anti-gay crowd has is that children might actually grow up to learn that what their parents and ministers taught them about gays is actually wrong. And once the kids start asking questions like that, who knows where it will lead?
And you can keep your kid under wraps for a while, but at some point, they grow up. Try telling your teenaged son he can't go to his best friend's house because he's parents are lesbians. Try telling your college-aged daughter. Eventually, they will see though it. And of course, they already are. People under 20 approve of SSM by a wide margin, and it's only growing.
Well, yeah. Duh.
That's exactly the option I'll pick. Your "hopes" notwithstanding.
given how cruel it would be to your child and to his friend.
Cruel? Yeah, and I'm the King of Scotland, Ireland, and all of England!
(And would you then do the same as to your child's friends whose mothers are living with their boyfriends, or engaged in other forms of what you see as sexual misconduct?)
Yes.
What's the biological argument for homosexuality being immoral?
(I'll be waiting for your sanctimonious lies, suggesting you would NEVER do such a thing.)
You think parents who disapprove of crack-smoking as an alternative lifestyle choice would really put their children in the position of asking such questions if they could avoid it?
Are you directing your question to Eugene?
This sounds eerily like some of the more extreme feminist political babble.
No, it's directed at anyone who happens to be a part of the Homosexual Mafia.
Easy question. Biologically, homosexuality is wrong. To behave in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. QED.
The entire fight is over a word (marriage) because the homosexual activists believe that if they can force governmental and societal approval of their behavior through the word "marriage" they can then proceed to further advance their agenda.
These activists want the word "marriage" despite the fact that no government on earth is powerful enough to change reality.
What these people fail to realize, is that despite their tantrums, despite whatever they might convince MA or CA to do, they cannot change the fact that marriage requires a man and a woman.
Just as if one could insist that the moon is made of cheese, and perhaps might convince a majority that the moon is made of cheese, the structure of the moon cannot change. Even if a governmental stamps it's approval on that belief that the moon is made of cheese, the structure of the moon STILL does not change.
That's what this fight is about. Homosexual activists want to force the redefinition of a word, in hopes that it will change the very underlying structure of the institution. One achieved, they then want government to legislate on behalf of that redefinition, never mind that it is as insane as a moon made of cheese.
And all of the sanctimonious insistence that various religious individuals will not be forced to recognize their fantasy is nothing more than a bold face lie.
We've already seen homosexual activists suing religious organizations to force them to cater to their fantasy world. We've already seen private businesses attacked for refusing to service the fantasy. (Wedding Photography). We've seen members of the homosexual mafia file litigation to force private companies to provide dating services for their deviancy.
It's not a long stretch to imagine the day when churches will be shut down for daring to speak against the agenda.
Skylar I have heard throwing a baseball described as being one of the worst things you can do to you arm. So therefore pitching is biologically wrong and thus baseball is immoral.
Pretty silly argument isn't it.
This is a false choice. The first option links being married with raising your (plural, as in biologically related to both parents) children. The second implicitly decouples marriage from children. It also limits the choice to two options when other options are more likely. For example:
More important is the choice my hypothetical son's future girlfriend will make:
Both of these counterexamples are better supported than the two choices EV proposed. They're also supported by CDC stats on unmarried childbearing. Instead of same-sex marriage increasing the number of married families with kids, it will lead more heterosexual couples to just have kids and live with the person they love. It's just that the person they love won't be related to their kids.
Churches are definitely the next target. If a minister or priest refuses to provide a so-called homosexual marriage, then that Priest can be brought up on hate charges on the theory that by performing a public service he's subject to laws against discrimination. Attacking Churches is definitely next. Furthermore, government service will be denied to people who do not tow the line. Just as Britian is thinking of denying medical coverage to smokers, so too will government services be denied to people who are hostile to the public policy of approving homosexual acts.
I'm surprised no one attacked the basic flaw of Eugene's alternatives. Each of them begins: "My friend lives in a happy home. His parents..."
Parents?
That's the problem right there. One of those women isn't a "parent." The other "parent" is a man. Until society degenerates enough to provide cloned babies or eggs from both women as genetic donors (another barbarism), the norm is that any lesbian couple will have a child with a biological father. That father is the parent.
One reason, among many, why I'm against so-called homosexual "marriage" is because it's just another attack on the importance of fatherhood and motherhood working as a unity. It says that either mothers or fathers aren't important. Chalk it up as another (un?)intended consequence of the homosexual agenda.
Oh, and I think that Al Malvia and PatrickHenry are 100% right. No matter how much the government puts a gun to my head, I'll never approve of so-called homosexual marriage.
This is why conservative atheists annoy me so much. Science has absolutely nothing to say about the rightness or wrongness of anything. Right and wrong are *moral* concepts, not scientific ones. That's the ENTIRE FREAKING POINT of the conservative critique of modern science, you know? That it doesn't make moral judgments? That, biologically speaking, homosexuality and heterosexuality are both observed behaviors (one of which produces offspring, one doesn't) without any moral distinction whatsoever? That Darwinism gave rise to both Stalin's death camps and the Holocaust because it was, specifically, an amoral philosophy, and didn't consider the moral implications of 'survival of the fittest'?
Sheesh. At least I have six thousand plus years of Biblical tradition backing up my opposition to homosexuality. All you have is your D+ in Bio 101.
Haha. No one in their right mind even wants that scenario.
I will, as a supporter of SSM, say unequivocally that you have every right to recognize or not recognize any marriage you want for any reason whatsoever. You may express any opinion you want on homosexuality as publicly as anyone else.
I have to admit, of the many, many terms one might apply to cloning, 'barbaric' is pretty much the last one I'd think of. What, do you split a baby with an axe and hope the halves regrow, like a flatworm?
Clearly you missed the class on reproduction then, Oren. There's this thing called a sperm and an egg, and a gamete, meiosis, etc.
Dangermouse, you've hit on a great point. The homosexual lobby has been considerably successful in perverting the meaning of the word "parent" already.
To those who say that the continued warping of our society into having governmental blessings on homosexual "marriages" is inevitable, well, so was the sinking of the Titanic once it hit the iceberg. It's inevitability didn't mean it was a good occasion.
According to Archbishop Usher, the date of Creation was October 23, 4004 BC (at 9 AM on a Sunday). This October 23, the world will be 6012 years old :)
"Biologically, homosexuality is wrong": just another way of saying gays are sub-human.
The juices still flow, my friend.
Is cancer wrong? How about Down's syndrome?
Once you use the word wrong, you've made your moral judgment.
Nature, meanwhile, keeps churning out people predestined to have a homosexual orientation. Millions and millions of people, and some animals, too. If biologically, homosexuality is wrong, then nature isn't biological. Wait, that doesn't work. Let's say that nature is creating unnatural outcomes. Therefore nature is wrong. To operate in a manner known to be wrong is immoral. Therefore, nature is immoral. QED.
The preceding paragraph works if you substitute "God" for "nature."
This is why Dick Cheney "threw his daughter under a bus" and declined to clearly state that homosexuality isn't a choice. The antigay arguments reduce pretty quickly to "My God said so! Too bad for you!" otherwise.
When Israel banned homosexuality and child sacrifice and heavily restricted polygamy, slavery, and rape in war; it wasn't because these activities were unnatural or uncommon it was because they were only too common and wrong.
By chaining sex within marriage, G-d, Jews, and Christians hoped to eliminate all the problems and conflicts caused by sex-obsessed societies and train men to focus on work and progress rather than genitalia. They also manged over time (in a very Burkean fashion) to eliminate polygamy, slavery, and rape in war. They succeeded and Western Europe (via Christianity) managed to grow in wealth and power and conquer the
nig-nog countries"lesser breeds without the law" that refused to give up their oppressions and pleasures.Returning to those thrilling days of yesteryear will only weaken parts of our society and reestablish the "Long Egyptian Night" of slavery, oppression of women, and poverty that were the heritage of mankind prior to the Judeo-Christian moral revolution.
I feel confident that I speak for the vast majority of all gay people when I say that I could not care less about your approval. Go put on your white hood and obsess about my sex life to your heart's content. I already know that the world is full of morons and your confirmation of the fact is really quite irrelevant... UNTIL you act on your ignorance in a way that threatens or harms me or my family.
Why is it so far out of the range of possibilities? It's already happening. In Britian, a new law has forced the Catholic Church to sever all ties to its adoption agencies and to basically privatize them in order to avoid violating the law that says providers of adoption services have to tow the line. The same thing basically happened in Massachusetts. If adoption is a public service, why isn't performing marriages a public service? The law says that government will recognize as valid a marriage performed by a minister. Why can't they amend the law to say as performed by a minister who does not discriminate? I can definitely even see a liberal judge reading into such current laws an antidiscrimination policy that requires such ministers to not discriminate.
Do you think that those changes will be imposed by some content-based restriction on speech? No. It'll be imposed by a content-neutral requirement to conform to antidiscrimination law. Churches don't have to be tax exempt, you know. The ones that don't conform to antidiscrimination law will be taxed. And the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Well, now you can, if you're an American. But don't count on it lasting much longer:
"Ake Green, pastor of a Pentecostal congregation in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison on a charge of inciting hatred against homosexuals. Pastor Green was prosecuted for his sermon in a January hearing, where he was found guilty of "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon preached in 2003.
According to press reports, Pastor Green condemned homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." His comments were delivered as part of a sermon, drawn from biblical texts, dealing with the sin of homosexuality. In Sweden, biblical preaching is now a crime."
As a former seminarian, I think you are mistaken here. The power NOT to tax is the power to silence...
Apparently, you're under the delusion that just because someone is learned in theories of modern science, that person cannot be a moral monster. Barbarism has little to do with science and everything to do with a moral culture. But this is a divergance from the thread.