Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.Again "gay marriage" used interchangeably with "same sex marriage" – demonstrating "bigotry" towards any "Chuck and Larry" couple out there. If you believe two men can truly marry each other, and yet you scoff at or mock the idea that two straight men or two straight women may want to marry each other, then how are you not as bigoted as you claim we are?
The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows.Any two people? Really? Any two? Somehow, I doubt it. My guess is that there are still "arbitrary" and "bigoted" restrictions so that not just any two people can get a state marriage license.
[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]
Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.So, is he a liar?
Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote.Why? Do they hand the gavel over to a farmer when they vote for a special bill to cater to the whims of farmers? I don't get this kind of ridiculous symbolism. I could think of a few things more appropriate than a gavel, as long as we're going to be symbolic.
But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage.We'll see. For some reason, I suspect such claims will have little effect in court. You can say stuff like this all you want to quiet opposition, but when push comes to shove, promises like this are worth less than a three dollar bill. Oops... there I go again, denying the reality of three dollar bills. The only reason why the Treasury doesn't issue them is pure bigotry!
Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto.Connecticut, I'm sure, already "allowed" "gay marriages". They simply hadn't neutered their state marriage licensing. There's a difference. Connecticut wasn't sending out law enforcement to break up same-sex couples claiming to be married. What has happened to journalism, anyway? Have the people of any state directly voted to neuter their marriage licensing? No. There's a story I want to see.
Felt like passing by on this issue, because Maine's declining population has been a big concern for local government there.
ReplyDeleteHere is a public policy brief from 2002 from the University of Maine
Briefing Paper prepared for:
Maine Leadership Consortium, Augusta, Maine
May 2002
Maine’s Disappearing Youth"The implications of a declining youth population are far-reaching and worrisome. Three areas of particular concern are the impact on Maine’s labor force, on Maine’s public education system,and on Maine culture. Maine is already experiencing a labor shortage in entry-level positions typically filled by young workers. If current trends continue, this labor shortage will expand, and may deter new investment and stunt the prospects for economic growth. While Maine has a sizable cohort of school-aged children, upon reaching age 18, many leave the state for college and, sociologists say, are unlikely to return. In the absence of young adults and their children, enrollments are down in nearly all of Maine’s elementary schools. Culturally, the loss of youth advances the decay of a community’s vital institutions: schools, businesses, clubs and organizations all suffer for lack of"
"Without youth, communities have rather dim futures. The traditional centers of cultural life—granges, schools, churches, general stores, municipal offices—suffer without new members and participants in the life of the community. It is well understood that regions with low educational attainment, lack of access to higher education, poor civic participation, and waning vitality of local government, are the most likely see their youth leave.39 But these conditions are just as likely to be a result of youth out-migration as the cause. It is reasonable to assume that one of the sad consequences of a declining youth population in Maine may be just this sort of cultural decay."
"Conclusion: The need for a Response
Maine’s youth are undeniably disappearing, thanks to an unfortunate combination of low birth rates, high youth out-migration, and low youth in-migration. This paper has outlined the basics of this demographic phenomenon and its possible implications in three areas. A declining youth population is indeed something to be worried about. More than worry, however, the loss of Maine’s youth demands action. Still enjoying the benefits from the continuing growth of the baby-boom cohort, it is easy to become complacent. But Maine must begin to plan now for the anti-boom—the day when the last of the baby-boomers has retired and Maine must function with many lesspeople. Without honest dialogue, and a statewide response, Maine’s economy, education system, and cultural heritage, will no longer be sustainable in years to come.
The first step, of which this research is a small part, is to help decision makers from both the public and private sectors gain an understanding of the youth population problem—its dimensions, its causes, its implications—and to encourage people to work together to find appropriate, targeted solutions. The knowledge gathered in this paper is only the very beginning of a true understanding of the problem. Though one can guess at the causes of youth migration from the circumstantial evidence, nobody really knows why youth leave Maine, or are deterred from moving here, because nobody has asked them. A large longitudinal study of Maine youth is order. Before a detailed and accurate picture of the problem, with all of its regional variations, can come into focus, an effective Maine-based response is out of reach. Maine needs a strong reversal of youth migration patterns and a new surge in births. How to encourage such a turnaround is an open question. From “pro-natalist” policies in Japan to a student loan forgiveness proposal in PEI, there are many ideas from other jurisdictions on how to curb a declining youth population. Yet before ideas can be shared and solutions identified, Maine policy makers must grasp the problem and understand its unique dimensions. Maine State Government must lead the way. Only with a government-led investigation and dialogue can Maine hope to marshal the resources to develop and implement a Maine solution for a Maine problem: the loss of youth.
-----
Rather then focusing public policy to encourage younger adults to settle to have babies, public policy will be simply gear to the needs of existing and aging adults. In my previous posts a while back, the neutering marriage isn't the cause, but a result of a much bigger issue. It isn't what we are accepting, rather what we are denying. We can not address those issues of demography and population growth without have a public policy model the promotes wanting to have children. The concept of marriage is not apart of this particular public policy brief, because the existing youth leave before actually marrying and having children of their own.
Can a culture desire heterosexuals to have children voluntarily if they are unwilling to acknowledge, encourage, and protect them in their public policy?
Here is another public policy brief from 2007 on accepting the aging population.
ReplyDeleteMAINE’S AGING POPULATION
A SURVEY OF POTENTIAL
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONSa freelance news report from March 2008 on the lost of small towns in Maine
Small Towns Respond to Population Decline
(from Maine Townsman, March 2008)
By Lee Burnett, Freelance Writer" Maine State Economist Katherine Reilly says population loss in Maine is driven not chiefly by the flight of college-age youth, even though the “brain drain” has become accepted as conventional wisdom. The loss is driven more by the aging of Maine’s population, the state’s low birth rate and the relative absence of in-migration of immigrants with larger families, she said.
“It’s hard to separate population decline from population aging,” she said.
Reilly predicts the shifting demographics will put increasing pressure on the property tax since income drops as people age but their property tax bills even with a circuit breaker program does not adjust according to income. The demographic shift may cause shifts in services, perhaps away from K-12 education and toward transportation assistance, she said.
To explore the implications of population decline, the Townsman interviewed people in small towns already experiencing decline. To be sure, it’s not pleasant to lose population. The real estate market sags, the tax burden gets a little heavier, elementary schools close, volunteerism wanes.
“The biggest problem you run into is with the work force,” said Jay Kamm, planning director for Northern Maine Development Corp. in Caribou. “It’s hard to attract even a medium-sized company when you have a declining population, especially working age population. We have a brain drain. Students that go on to college don’t come back because the wages typically don’t pay enough.”"
"The town ceased being a community when the Whitneyville Elementary School closed about 35 years ago, he said.
“When you lose your school, it tears the heart and soul from community,” he said. “A small community needs a focal point, where people can congregate. Parents, grandparents aunts, and uncles, they all follow the children. That creates community.”
But it wasn’t just about economics, Gardner said.
Participation in town government has dwindled to the point where all three selectmen, the outgoing town clerk and incoming town clerk are related by blood or marriage. Gardner said he worries about the growing complexity of town government, even in a small town, and the impact of a single lawsuit."
According to the article every small town is trying to be creative hoping on tourists are willing to drive through and have a bite to eat or stop to look at an old train.
"If you believe two men can truly marry each other, and yet you scoff at or mock the idea that two straight men or two straight women may want to marry each other, then how are you not as bigoted as you claim we are?"
ReplyDeleteBigoted? To quote "The Princess Bride," I don't think that word means what you think that word means.
Try answering the question, czousa. Whatever general definition you want to use.
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll answer the question: If I scoff at the idea of two straight men or two straight women getting married, I am not nearly as bigoted as your side is, because at least I am not trying to make those marriages illegal.
ReplyDeleteYou can believe gay marriage is wrong all you want, and I won't call you a bigot, as long as you recognize that people still have the right to do something you disagree with in a free country.
Ah, but the choice to form a nonmarital arrangement, like a relationship that is limited to one-sex, is a liberty exercised not a right denied.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it needs to be licensed too. But for that you still need to distinguish what you have in mind from other arrangements and relationship types.
Would there be a "gay" requirement when two men show up for a license? Would there be a "lesbian" requirement for two women? Must they also meet a legal requirement that forces sexual attraction or sexual behavior of some sort?
If not, then, what would they consent to -- a nonsexual type of relationship, perhaps?
Because it its essential features are not dependant on sexualization of the arrangement, then, your talk of "gay marriage" misses the mark.
The marriage law's man-woman basis does not distinguish between classes of men and classes of women. It integrates the sexes. And it leaves plenty of room for integration of sexual orienttions, as well.
Csouza101, do you wish to stigmatize "mixed orientation" marriages?
Do you wish to elevate some type of same-sex arrangement that is nonsexual? Why?
"Would there be a "gay" requirement when two men show up for a license? Would there be a "lesbian" requirement for two women? Must they also meet a legal requirement that forces sexual attraction or sexual behavior of some sort?"
ReplyDeleteNo, there would be no "gay" or "lesbian" requirement, nor would there be a requirement for sexual attraction. We don't require that for straight marriage, nor do we require any proof of their orientation or even their gender, which makes anti-gay marriage laws unenforceable anyway. The whole point of my post was that marriage should be open to any two consenting adults who aren't related. No requirements or proof of love should be necessary. Straight people get married for many different reasons all the time, and no one questions whether their marriage should be made illegal.
As for wishing to "stigmatize mixed orientation marriages," I think I know what you are talking about, but I'm not sure, because I can't believe that anyone would actually be concerned with this. Are you seriously asking me if I think a marriage between a gay man and a lesbian woman, or any other combination of people who are not sexually attracted to each other, should be stigmatized?
Isn't it already? If a woman is married to an openly gay man, or vice versa, that couple is a laughing stock. I also don't see why anyone would want to enter such a union in the first place. Yeah, there are benefits, but why settle for someone you don't love? Gay marriage would mostly put an end to those types of unhappy marriages.
Anyway, I don't see how your question relates in any way, shape, or form to the gay marriage argument. You are comparing a stigma that would effect almost no one if gay marriage was legal, to an actual violation of legal rights that effects about 10% of the population.
That's if I'm reading your statement right. It was so incoherent and unreadable, I really can't tell what you were trying to say. I also find it hard to believe you would ask the questions I think you just asked me. The rest of your post I didn't understand at all. It's hard to persuade someone when your writing is so sloppy they can't even tell what you are trying to say.
Read carefully and put aside your assumptions about the marriage issue.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a sexual relationship, by type, and a public relationship, by type, due to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.
There is no comparable basis for the one-sexed arrangement.
I take your response as an admission that the marriage law does not classify men and women by sexual orientation.
You also acknowledge a readiness to perpetuate a stigma against "mixed orientation" marriages even though you have emphasized sexual orientation in your remarks about "gay marriage".
Combined, these two admissions prove my overall point. SSM is sex-segregative AND segregative in terms of sexual orientation.
Marriage is neither of these.
* * *
Now, given the nonsexual basis for the type of relationship you have in mind, what about it merits treatment that sets it apart from the vast range of relationships and living arrangements outside of marriage?
Are they not equal to what you have in mind?
Based on your answers to those questions, consider the following.
You specified a few limitations:
1. Just two people.
2. Not related people.
3. Consenting people who are adults.
Given its nonsexual basis, and given the lack of the two-sexed criterion, could you please explain how your three proposed limitations could be sustained for the relationship type you have in mind?
Related people can and do marry in this country. Some cannot. Previously married people can and do marry, some cannot. People who enter marriage give their consent to all that marriage entails, including the presumption of paternity and its opposite-sexed basis. Individuals who form a one-sexed arrangement cannot.
The point raised regarding consent raising the question, consent to what?
Is there a core around which your limitations would be drawn? If so, is it this that people consent to when they'd enter the relationship type you have in mind?
Is it a public relationship such that society also would consent to that core?
Typo correction: "The point regarding consent raises the question, consent to what?"
ReplyDeleteI've a slight handicap with my hands. Sorry for any confusion with typing errors.
OK, so you wouldn't refuse to call them "married" if they are both heterosexual and of the same gender, but...
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of my post was that marriage should be open to any two consenting adults who aren't related.Oh, so you don't want to call them married.
Let me paraphrase Chairm's question. If you believe two men can truly marry each other, and yet you scoff at or mock the idea that a brother and sister, or two brothers, or two sisters, or three or more people (all agreeing), may all want to marry each other, then how are you not as bigoted as you claim we are?
At the time of Loving, I think many people would have said, "The whole point of my post was that marriage should be open to any man and woman who are consenting adults and who aren't related."
ReplyDeleteWas someone who said this "bigoted".
If so, how are you any less so now for still wanting to retain the last two restrictions?
And remember, the reasons usually given for retaining the restriction against sibling marriage ("their children will be deformed") and polygamy ("it's historically been a way for men to oppress women") are rendered totally void by SSM, as those reasons do not apply to two brothers or sisters, or three men or three women. (People who ridicule the "slippery slope" argument rarely note this).
ReplyDelete"I take your response as an admission that the marriage law does not classify men and women by sexual orientation."
ReplyDeleteRight...and how would allowing same-sex marriage change this?
"You also acknowledge a readiness to perpetuate a stigma against "mixed orientation" marriages even though you have emphasized sexual orientation in your remarks about "gay marriage"."
I do not wish to perpetuate any such stigma. I am merely pointing out that this stigma already exists, and same-sex marriage wouldn't make it any worse.
"Combined, these two admissions prove my overall point. SSM is sex-segregative AND segregative in terms of sexual orientation."
How in the world does it prove that point?
"Marriage is neither of these."
Again I'm going to ask you, why would you want a marriage to be "integrative" in terms of sexual orientation? Why would you want a heterosexual to marry a homosexual? What would such a person get out of this?
And most importantly, why would you want to make it illegal for a person to choose to have a "segregative marriage?" Would you also make it illegal for a person to choose a "racially segragative marriage?"
As for the arguments on incest and polygamy: call me when the Polygamous Rights Group or the Incest Rights Group becomes a significant force in America. Then we'll discuss that. Right now, it's irrelevant. I don't have to discuss the merits of those right now. You have to prove that America should choose to deny someone the right to marry someone of the same sex. Anything else is changing the subject.
Csouza101, well, if there is no basis for the complaint that the marriage law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, why have you emphasize sexual orienation?
ReplyDelete* * *
Also, you said that stigma based on "mixed sexual orienation" marriage would not be fixed by SSM. The stigma is reinforced by SSM argumentation, such as you've shown here. That would promote segregation on the very basis you have emphasized.
Why have you emphasized sexual orientation if not to oppose stigma and discrimination on that basis?
Now you shrug and say, so what.
* * *
The point about segregation is proven by 1) SSM being sex-segregative due to its lack of the other sex; 2) SSM being segregative by sexual orientation due to the directly promoted stigma against mixing the sexual orientations.
You brought up both. And you emphasized sexual orientation. The point is proven.
SSM argumentation does not provide for integration of the sexes within the relationship type that it promotes as being meritorious; and it disparages integration of orientations within that same type of relationship because it claims these are loathesome.
SSM argumenttion does this on the basis of identity politics of the gaycentric variety.
This is closely analogous with the racist identity politics that has been repudiated with the demise of the anti-miscegenation system.
* * *
You said: And most importantly, why would you want to make it illegal for a person to choose to have a "segregative marriage?"I wouldn't want to make it illegal.
But you are arguing for segregation and I am telling you that marriage integrates the sexes and also orientations.
Indeed, the relationship type you have in mind is not illegal. But neither is it a form of marriage.
* * *
You said:
As for the arguments on incest and polygamy: call me when the Polygamous Rights Group or the Incest Rights Group becomes a significant force in America.[blink]
You need to justify that dismissive remark. It runs directly in contradiction with the SSM campaign's courtcentric strategy.
SSM argumentation is about redrawing boundaries. You brought it up. You ought to address it and not change the subject.
You still have not answered my question. Why would you want to marry someone of a different sexual orientation than yourself? Answer that, and I'll answer your questions.
ReplyDeleteAs for the arguments on incest and polygamy: call me when the Polygamous Rights Group or the Incest Rights Group becomes a significant force in America.Oh, yes, the last out: "It depends on the number that want it!" It only takes one to bring a case to court, and courts have never fallen for this argument. Rights, however they may be defined, are not defined by the number of people claiming them to be rights.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you want to marry someone of a different sexual orientation than yourself?Maybe because I found her to be more attractive than she found me, and felt that whatever our proclivities, she would be a good mother and I would be a good father, and we would work well together regardless of sexual satisfaction, which is overblown anyway. Indeed, I will say it, the insistence on physical sexual satisfaction in marriage is one of the biggest reasons for the high divorce rate today.
(Let me write that again, spacing out after the italics, which I keep forgetting about doing).
ReplyDeleteAs for the arguments on incest and polygamy: call me when the Polygamous Rights Group or the Incest Rights Group becomes a significant force in America.x
Oh, yes, the last out: "It depends on the number that want it!" It only takes one to bring a case to court, and courts have never fallen for this argument. Rights, however they may be defined, are not defined by the number of people claiming them to be rights.
Why would you want to marry someone of a different sexual orientation than yourself?x
Maybe because I found her to be more attractive than she found me, and felt that whatever our proclivities, she would be a good mother and I would be a good father, and we would work well together regardless of sexual satisfaction, which is overblown anyway. Indeed, I will say it, the insistence on physical sexual satisfaction in marriage is one of the biggest reasons for the high divorce rate today.
csouza101, unlike yourself I do not claim to know their relationships better than they do. But the fact that people have entered, and will continue to enter, such "mixed orienation" marriages serves to demonstrate that the man-woman basis of marriage law does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet SSM argumentation does classify people on that basis and does promote two kinds of sex-segregation as meritorious.
ReplyDeleteNow, sure, maybe you'd expect to hear only about the examples of people whose marriages failed in some way, but then those who sustain their marriages are not likely to seek out publicity nor to bring activist attention upon themselves. Remember the stigmitization?
Your question presupposes that "gay marriage" is indeed a form of marriage. It is not.
The overall point I made is that SSM arugmentation depends on a sort of identity politics which promotes segregation -- of sexes and of sexual orientations -- and yet makes a false equivalence. It says that the man-woman basis of marriage law is some kind of a ban on something, when that something is not marriage in the first place. It says that supporting marriage qua marriage is analogous with opposing "interracial" marriage. And yet the contrary is true: the gay identity politics of the SSM campaign is closely analogous with the racist identity politics that pressed into marriage an assertion of supremacy based on identity. And it did so for nonmarriage purposes.
Selective sex segregation in both instances. One based on a racist filter and the other on a gay filter.
Undercutting provision for responsible procreation in both instances. In the case of SSM the central point of attack has been to deny the societal significance of integrating motherood and fatherhood -- bonding men and woman and their children.
The real question is not why someone would enter a relationship that is integrative, but why someone would insist that segregation be treated as the new integration. The false equivalencies are glaring.
The way people talk of sexual orientation is too often highly politicized.
ReplyDeleteIn marriage, the husband is orientated toward his wife, and she toward him. This goes way beyond sexual attraction and sexual behavior. Having children puts this into perspective.
If an individual is orientated sexually toward women, why is that person classified as a heterosexual if a man and homosexual if a woman? Apparently sex differentiation is highly signficant.
And yet SSM argumentation disparages the societal significance of the foundational social institution that unites the great halves of humankind. It derides the fact of complementarity that is embedded in humankind; the two sexes complete each other by mutually supplying the other's lack. The biological and physiological fact of opposite-sexed procreation is undeniable. And no matter the speculation about whether complementarity is purely a social construct or is party nature and partly nurture, the facrt remains that sex differntiation matters for adult human beings. And it matters for children being raised by moms and dads; the lack of one or the other is major factor experienced in many different ways by children.
Marriage makes normative the unity of the sexes -- at the most private levels but also at the most public levels, and all points in-between. This is not about gender roles or costumes that people put on to play upon a stage. Sex matters and marriage is not neutral about that.
Being orientated toward a coherent set of principles and practices is far more important for a society than is being orientated toward this or that form of identity politics. Marriage exerts its influence as a social institution, not as a political and legal football that gets kicked around the field in a game of winners and losers.
Marriage creates fatherhood, anthropologicallyl speaking, and it protects the birthright of children to be raised by the man and the woman who created them and brought them into the word. Yes, dire circumstances and tragedy can intervene to deny children this birthright, but that does not justify the deliberate attempt to deinstituionalize fatherhood. Denying the centrality of responsible procreation makes motherhood a gender-neutral concept. It reduces men to "sperm donors" as if sticking around to socialized and educate and care for one's children is optional and, by default, a primarily female role.
Marriage, like procreation, unites the sexes.
"Gay marriage" is about making marriage mean less and less.
I posted some interested articles on public policy and instead what we get is a name calling match of who's the bigot.
ReplyDeleteOne of my first posts here I believe in 2007
Are all life sciences heterosexist? ""Pollination: The process by which plant pollen is transferred from the male reproductive organs to the female reproductive organs to form seeds. In flowering plants, pollen is transferred from the anther to the stigma, often by the wind or by insects. In cone-bearing plants, male cones release pollen that is usually borne by the wind to the ovules of female cones.""
"Will we have to rewrite middle school biology books, so we don’t offend those who have no interest having their anther be released in a female ovule? You will never bear fruit if you choose not to pollinate. Note I use the word “choose”. Even though I recognize same-sex attraction is something one might not have any control over, I’m talking about behavior and all people including heterosexuals choose their actions. "
You're argument is that human biology, even from the theory of evolution is can not be acknowledge as a society, because to note the difference is intolerant of homosexuals?
Is Leonardo Da Vinci a bigot with his drawing of "The Copulation" which can be viewed on Opine here?I've been called every name in the book, politicians have been influence by money to pack their campaign war chests from the same-sex marriage lobby., and so on....
Guess what?
None of it matters, because you can't fool mother nature.
No matter how much you suppress, sterilize, and redefine human sexuality, human sexuality is two-sexed and fertile by nature.
You can type away until eternity denying it, but you will never change it.
Go ahead slander and libel away, it's pointless.
If two straight men wanted to get married in Maine, while it would seem odd, I would be in favor of it.
ReplyDeleteWhich just shows how little regard some people have for the institution of marriage. Thanks Vast.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I don't share the same opinion you have on what marriage is and isn't. Marriage is a simple recognition of the love two consenting adults share in the eyes of law.
ReplyDeleteIf that's all it was, we wouldn't have such a fine tradition of men marrying the mother's of their children out of duty and responsibility (sometimes enforced at the end of a shotgun).
ReplyDeleteYou'd also expect the law to mention "love", if what you said were true. The State isn't particularly concerned with whether or not you love anyone... but will hold you accountable for your responsibility to your children. Mariage is the simplest and least intrusive way to accomplish that goal.
The government doesn't care if you love the person you marry or not. But very few people these days get married for reasons other than love, which less than a couple hundred years ago was an entirely different matter. Then marriages were often arraigned by heads of the family. They were often nothing more than business transactions or the simple sealing of a alliance between families. As late as the 1800's love in marriage was even discouraged by many religious and social institutions. Fortunately for all of us, marriage has evolved to be based on the ideals of love.
ReplyDeleteLove however, along with religion, can not be legislated.
That fine tradition of men marrying the mother of their children out of duty ended a long time ago. You can see that in the Bristol Palin, Levi Johnson relationship for evidence.
The state holding you accountable for the responsibility of children that a couple produces has no connection to marriage. If two single individuals have a child, if the mother files for state assistance the father can be made to pay for support of the child.
Marty has answered your assertion Vast.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Marriage is a simple recognition of the love two consenting adults share in the eyes of law."
Marty: "You'd also expect the law to mention "love", if what you said were true."
There is no love requirement.
So it can't be essential, according to the stated standards of SSM argumentation.
Instead, the SSM campaign talks up a big storm about sexual orientation and runs away from making that a legal requirement.
So, in terms of the law recognizing what SSMers have in mind, "love" is a bogus talking point and so is "sexual orientation".
That means the wide range of relationship types and kinds of living arrangements outside of marriage would not be disqualified based on "love" and "sexual orientation". Indeed, SSM argumentation removes the public aspect of the sexual aspect of the relationship type they have in mind.
Reading their words makes this clear. But, Vast, rather than trying to read your mind, could you plainly state how you'd have the law distinguish between marriage (as per your viewpoint) and the rest that is not marriage?
What are its essentials without which it would not be "marriage"?
Vast the marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced and effectively disproves the last paragraph in your previous remarks.
ReplyDeleteMarriage has an overflow effect, as well, where some places have provision for unwed presumption of paternity. It is far less reliable and far more intrusive. It depends, utterly, on the Government to intervene into the private homes of families.
There is a place for making responsible procreation the aspriational ideal -- even above the relatively modern tradition of romance which you have emphasized.
Vast points to many things marriage "used to mean" but no longer does, and then claims to know what it "currently means" even though he has zero evidence to support it... it's just "what marriage means to Vast".
ReplyDeleteWhich is fine.
But does nothing to explain why The State gives a whit about Vast's definition of marriage, or why it would be interested in endorsing it over mine or any other.
I stand by the legal definition of marriage as it is in the state of Iowa. The law in the state of Iowa for marriage makes no exceptions based on gender, orientation, psychical condition, or any number of other requirements you can think of.
ReplyDeleteIt is simply a civil contractual agreement between two consenting adults which creates a family unit. It allows the two people to act as a single unit in the eyes of the law on maters such as property ownership, healthcare choices, and end of life decisions, just to name a few of the nearly 1100 laws that provide married couples some sort of benefit or responsibility that non-married individuals have.
The existence, or potential existence of children is irrelevant to the definition of marriage.
Just to modify my last statement a bit, there are prohibitions in Iowa against people who are all ready related through bloodlines, such as brothers, sisters, and 1st cousins.
ReplyDeleteVast: The existence, or potential existence of children is irrelevant to the definition of marriage.There go children under the neutered marriage bus.
ReplyDeleteQuoth the gorilla:
"In order for same-sex couples to marry they have to make the definition all about the feelings of the two people involved and not about children. They have to remove the very social responsibility that warrants state notice of marriage to begin with. Because their unions will not result in offspring any consideration for children that is allowed to stay in the definition of marriage makes same-sex unions wholly unqualified."
So are you suggesting that we should never allow two un-married individuals to have children, even if they choose to not live together or support each other?
ReplyDeleteMarty: Vast points to many things marriage "used to mean" but no longer does, and then claims to know what it "currently means" even though he has zero evidence to support it... it's just "what marriage means to Vast".
ReplyDeleteWell put Marty. Basically, marriage means to Vast whatever it needs to mean in order to reach vast's pre-drawn conclusion that marriage should be neutered.
Vast: So are you suggesting that we should never allow two un-married individuals to have children,...Note the scorched earth tactics so common among neutered marriage activists. If they are not allowed to neuter marriage then marriage should become so onerous and intrusive that nobody would want it. These are not the actions of someone who truly appreciates the valuable role marriage plays in our society.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that asking a question simply gets the run around and not a simple direct answer?
ReplyDeleteAs I have stated Op-ed, I stand by the legal definition of marriage as it is in the state of Iowa.
Vast: Why is it that asking a question simply gets the run around and not a simple direct answer?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you dismissing my answer as a "run around?"
As I have stated Op-ed, I stand by the legal definition of marriage as it is in the state of Iowa.
Only Iowa? Not any of the states with marriage amendments making explicit the man/woman criterion? Not any of the other countries around the world and across recorded human history that recognize the man/woman nature of marriage? Just Iowa and perhaps any of the other states that just recently agree with your pre-drawn conclusion? In other words, you emphasize my point: "Basically, marriage means to Vast whatever it needs to mean in order to reach vast's pre-drawn conclusion that marriage should be neutered."
Tell me, why do we need to make marriage "simply a civil contractual agreement," when we already have simple, civil contracts for that? Answer: Because it contradicts Vast's pre-drawn conclusions.
Tell me, why is the government interested enough in procreation to trace the "bloodlines" it produces but not interested enough to have an institution dedicated to it? Answer: Because it contradicts Vast's pre-drawn conclusions.
Vast could you explain what your question is?
ReplyDeleteYou said: "So are you suggesting that we should never allow two un-married individuals to have children, even if they choose to not live together or support each other?" x
1. Two unmarried individuals
2. never allowed to have children
3. they choose to live apart
4. they choose not to support each other
* * *
The marriage statute in Iowa still has the man-woman criterion.
You must mean that you stand by the conclusion of the Iowa Supreme Court's pro-SSM decision.
But do you stand by its reasoning? The opinion is based on same-sex "sexual attraction" and "romance".
That premise, with its blatant lack of a legal requirement, runs afoul of your own standard standard when you argued that proceation occurs outside of marriage and that the government does not force married people procreate.
You would not deny that same-sex "sexual attraction" and "romance" can and do occur outside of marriage and that there is no legal requirement for attraction and romance.
So by what do you really stand, Vast, if not your own rules of reasoning about marriage?
Vast: "there are prohibitions in Iowa against people who are all ready related through bloodlines, such as brothers, sisters, and 1st cousins."
ReplyDeleteCare to explain to me WHY these particular restrictions are important to marriage, and HOW they are relevant to the same-sex variety?
Op-ed, because instead of answering my question, which could have been done with a simple yes or no, you simply claimed I was attacking marriage.
ReplyDeleteI live in Iowa so those are the laws I live by.
Tell me, why do we need to make marriage "simply a civil contractual agreement," when we already have simple, civil contracts for that? Answer: Because it contradicts Vast's pre-drawn conclusions.
Because those simple civil contracts do not award the benefits and responsibilities that marriage provides. If they did, I personally wouldn't care if it was called marriage or civil unions, or some other name. Every civil-union law that exists or has existed so far in the US has fallen short of providing all of those benefits and responsibilities.
I have no interest in neutering marriage or attacking marriage. I simply want the same benefits and responsibilities that it grants by law.
There is nothing in the Iowa statue that specifies gender in it's marriage laws. The only law that did was found to be unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete"I simply want the same benefits and responsibilities that it grants by law."
ReplyDeleteBut the idea of marrying someone of the opposite sex is simply too "icky" to contemplate?
But the idea of marrying someone of the opposite sex is simply too "icky" to contemplate?
ReplyDeleteIt's something the biology of my body and mind is not wired for. I didn't wake up one morning and say, "oh hey, wouldn't it be fun to be gay".
I'll take the question, as written:
ReplyDelete"So are you suggesting that we should never allow two un-married individuals to have children, even if they choose to not live together or support each other?"
The court will demand support for the children, and provide parenting and visitation rights, along the exact same lines as if this non-couple had been married once, but then divorced. This is key, so pay attention -- if this couple had been married once, and then divorced -- the court would enforce support and parental rights even if the children were biologically unrelated to the father!
When it comes to the welfare of children, all parents are treated AS IF they had been married, whether they ever were or not. Amazing isn't it? It's almost as if marriage was ABOUT providing for children!
A shockingly bigoted thought, i know.
The biology of your body is wired to integrate with a woman, regardless of what your mind says might be fun.
ReplyDeleteVast, I've answered yours -- please take a stab at mine from 5/08/2009 01:08:00 PM.
ReplyDeleteThe court will demand support for the children, and provide parenting and visitation rights, along the exact same lines as if this non-couple had been married once, but then divorced. This is key, so pay attention -- if this couple had been married once, and then divorced -- the court would enforce support and parental rights even if the children were biologically unrelated to the father!
ReplyDeleteActually Marty it doesn't unless one of the parents requests it. When my parents divorced I went to live with my father. There was nothing in their divorce settlement that required my mother to pay child support. Now if at some point my father had requested state assistance in order to take care of me then the state would have ordered my mother to pay child support.
The biology of your body is wired to integrate with a woman, regardless of what your mind says might be fun.
This is a point we disagree on and unfortunately is generally the root of disagreements about homosexuality.
To answer your question more fully Marty, the idea of marrying a woman disagrees with the biology of my mind and body. I know this from having actually tried it.
To answer your question about incest, while I find the idea personally repugnant I'm not sure why exactly it is illegal. It's not something I've ever really had any interest in to study.
ReplyDeleteVast: I live in Iowa so those are the laws I live by.
ReplyDeleteYou also live in the United States, where marriage is defined by law to be between a man and a woman. Why didn't you site that law? Because it didn't support your pre-drawn conclusion. Iowa only recently neutered marriage there. Did you cite Iowa law before that? Why not? Because it didn't support your pre-drawn conclusion.
Because those simple civil contracts do not award the benefits and responsibilities that marriage provides.
So marriage "is simply a civil contractual agreement between two consenting adults" but it's not "simply a civil contract" because it also obligates other third parties? That makes sense to you? And those other obligated parties should have no say in that contract? That's a sensible position in your view? Or does it just support your pre-drawn conclusions?
I have no interest in neutering marriage or attacking marriage.
And because the damage you propose is unintended it should therefore be ignored? That's a sensible position in your view? Or does ignoring the damage simply support your pre-drawn conclusion?
I simply want the same benefits and responsibilities that it grants by law.
I want to put a siren on my car and force my way through rush hour traffic. That doesn't mean I should have that "benefit and responsibility." Redefining the word "ambulance" would give me that "benefit and responsibility." Just because it agrees with my pre-drawn conclusion doesn't make it right.
Some people may need the same "benefit and responsibility" as ambulance drivers, the police for example. They wouldn't argue "ambulance" should be redefined so they can have that "benefit and responsibility" by mere side effect. They wouldn't claim some false equivalency with ambulance drivers. Instead, they'd make the direct claim for lights and a siren based on the purpose police serve in society.
You have the same opportunity. Like it or not, the relationship between a husband and a wife bears with it the potential to procreate and no same-sex relationship does. That is not a trivial difference. That makes the two relationships very different. Instead of trying to pretend that difference doesn't exist or is, at the least, trivial or unimportant, argue for a legal treatment based on the purpose for recognizing same-sex unions.
What interest did you say that was again? Oh, you didn't. How do I know? I give you enough credit to believe if you had such a direct argument to make, you'd have made it instead of relying on a transparently false equivalency that would address your claim only as a side effect.
You also live in the United States, where marriage is defined by law to be between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteCan you please show me where in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence where this is stated?
Vast: Can you please show me where in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence where this is stated...
ReplyDeleteCan you please show me where in the Iowa state constitution neutered marriage is stated? Remember what I said about you accepting arguments based only on whether they support your pre-drawn conclusions?
Iowa Code § 595.21. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.
ReplyDeleteYou rock, Chairm!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVast, the opinion (i.e. the reasoning) of the Iowa court depended on something for which there is no legal requirement. And, based on your own stated standard, that must invalidate the proferred reasoning.
ReplyDeleteOn what do you stand if not your own stated standard of reasoning?
Vast, why is the idea of some related people forming an emotional bond and seeking government bennies considered by you to be "personally repugnant"?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a trivial question.
Which is the law that was deemed unconstitutional by the state of Iowa as it violated the Equal protections clause of our state constitution.
ReplyDeleteVast, why is the idea of some related people forming an emotional bond and seeking government bennies considered by you to be "personally repugnant"? Because it is not something I would personally do, if others want to engage in that sort of thing then so be it.
When Iowa law 595.2 was deemed unconstitutional it was invalidated.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499.pdf
Article 1 Section 1 Iowa State constitution: All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1 Section 6: All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
State law 595.2 was found to be in violation of these articles, among others, of the state constitution and thus the law was voided under...
Article 12 Section 1: This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this constitution into effect.
Vast: Article 1...
ReplyDeleteBzzzzzt. Quoting random pieces of the Iowa Constitution doesn't suffice. You claimed:
"I stand by the legal definition of marriage as it is in the state of Iowa. ...
"It is simply a civil contractual agreement between two consenting adults which creates a family unit."
Now, find that in the Iowa Constitution.
One doesn't have to marry to have a family.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a family, ones own mother and father and biological relationship with other relatives.
An individual doesn't have a 'civil contractual agreement' with his/her parents'. Instead they have a natural right to have a relationship with both parents. We must as a society protect that right for an individual to know their own family, because as individuals we aren't present at conjugal act that creates us. What better way then promoting monogamous heterosexual activity, the birds & bees, then acknowledging this through good public policy the act where babies come from.
By the way, I have no 'contractual agreement' with my husband. I'm not a prostitute and my children aren't products of a bargain. Laws have to be applied to facts, how human sexuality is designed for and its function is biological for reproductive purposes. Yeah, really. What a shocker. We as humans may try to distort this reality, by any means possible even by law. But legal definitions don't trump mother nature.
Legal definitions are pointless and become "meaningless acrobatic" to have if they don't recognize what is really going on.
The thing is I doubt even homosexual couples wouldn't call their relationships 'civil contractual agreements', rather from friends and family members I know who are gay they have truly good friendships and reliance. I can and will recognize many positive elements of their relationships, but I will not deny what the purpose and function of sexual behavior.
The problem with neutering marriage is denying the positive element in heterosexual relations, all that every individuals benefits from being raised by one's own mother and father both in a cooperative manner without any need of the family court creating a 'shared parenting plan'. I realize the thought of one's parents having sex makes us uneasy, but that is how people are created.
Why should it be legally unconstitutional to recognize where people come from and promoting that their family cares for them?
Any law that references marriage in the state of Iowa treats it as a civil contract. If it is not a civil contract then what is it?
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact that marriage is provided for at all in law makes it a civil contract in the United States. Even law 595.2 while not specifically stating it, implies that marriage is a civil contract. The Government is forbidden by the US constitution from recognizing the religious version of marriage. The fact that you can get married in a church and have it count as a civil version of marriage is simply a matter of convenience.
595.1 595.1A Contract.
Marriage is a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts, except as herein otherwise declared.
http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/2009code/1/23720/23721/23722/23724?f=templates&fn=default.htm
Vast, sure, you favor the conclusion of the court opinion but your own standards would destroy its reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThat's a problem for you because you oppose the statute but rely entirely on reasoning that you say you oppose.
So, again, it comes down to the use of better reasoning OR the assertion of arbitrary authority.
If you like the court conclusion, then, you must abandon your stated standards for reasoning about marriage.
If you insist on your stated standard for resoning, then, you must abandon the court's reasoning to reach your favored conclusion.
Now, if for you marriage is just between two people and society (i.e. via the state authority) is not a party to it, what is the point of the SSM campaign, in fact?
* * *
And, Vast, you might as well concede that Op-ed is correct about the state constitution.
You are now pointing at statutes. But marriage is more than a civil contract, as even the Iowa high court's opinion (and the plaintiffs) conceded. So you might as well concede that as well.
I know it can be daunting to support your assertions about the law. Instead, why not focus your efforts on plainly stating the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind?
Then it can be fairly assessed as to its merits and demerits vis-a-vis government bennies and other legal incidents that would flow from that core meaning?
Here is what I'd expect to come out the other end of the reasoning process on this relationship type: a call for protections that should be accorded equally to people in like situations.
And that would be outside of marriage. If the issue is family formation, then, it is far more than a civil contract that you are trying to promote here.
It is not such a big deal, really, to start with the basics. It makes it more sure that you have found a solid place to stand when you choose to "stand by" this or that assertion. It is much better than your invitation to society to join you to stand in quicksand.
When you say that you find something personally repugnant, and can give no rational reason for it, you do realize that you have contradicted your own stated standard of reasoning about the marriage, right?
ReplyDeleteSo now you shrug: "if others want to engage in that sort of thing then so be it."
Okay, so in your viewpoint there is no limitation based on relatedness. And, you know, I had expected the shrug from you. At least you are being consistent. Thanks.
* * *
Now, how about the limitation of just two adults? Consenting adults can agree to a civil contract, surely.
By the way, Vast, what "sort of thing" did you mean earlier?
ReplyDeleteThere is no sexual requirement, remember, so we should not assume that related people would engage in incestuous sexual behavior of some kind. They may not even be sexually attracted or romantically inclined toward each other. That's not illegal and I don't think it would be repugnant. You do, however, right?
Hi Rennee, may I lift your comments with the links to a blogpost?
ReplyDeleteSorry, no I don't recognize it as anything more than a civil contract as it is defined by State code.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you don't, Vast, but that just means you are again at odds with the reasoning of the Iowa Court by whom you said you stood.
ReplyDeleteVast: Sorry, no I don't recognize it as anything more than a civil contract as it is defined by State code.
ReplyDeleteSorry, where did "State code" say it isn't "anything more?" Saying humans are animals doesn't say they are only animals.
Your view of marriage clearly contradicts Vast's, who claims marriage is not just a simple civil contract.
"...simple civil contracts do not award the benefits and responsibilities that marriage provides."
It's starting to look like marriage is whatever you need it to be to support your pre-drawn conclusion. Where have I read that before?
Vast: "To answer your question about incest, while I find the idea personally repugnant I'm not sure why exactly it is illegal."
ReplyDeleteObviously "personal repugnance" isn't a good enough reason to make something illegal. Is incest just another one of those "religious taboos" like homosexuality? If so, it must be struck down by the courts, right?
No, actually, there are is a very good reason that incest is taboo in practically every culture, and is prohibited from marriage in every state of the union, and that is the greatly increased likelyhood of having children born with severe birth defects. Thousands of years of experience has taught mankind that intermarriage has disastrous consequenses for future generations.
Which makes me wonder WHY you brought up the fact that "there are prohibitions in Iowa against people who are all ready related through bloodlines, such as brothers, sisters, and 1st cousins" while simultaneously arguing that marriage doesn't have anything to do with children or procreation. Obviously it does have a great deal to do with that -- otherwise these laws against consanguinity would not be on the books.
And it's certainly fair to speculate just how long they can REMAIN on the books, considering the fact that they have absolutely no relevance to the same-sex variety of marriage. Surely it is unfair (ignorant and bigoted even) to prohibit 2 gay first cousins from "marrying"...
As I pointed out above, few have noted how the main arguments against incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage are rendered moot by SSM, as they don't apply to two brothers, or two sisters, or three men or three women.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not believe that the increased likelihood of birth defects is the only reason for the incest taboo. It may not even be the main reason. I believe there is also a major emotional/psychological problem with mixing sexual relations into the sibling relationship, or into the parent/child or even the "parsib"/"sibchild" relationship. As such, I think there is a major cultural problem with not maintaining a taboo on doing so, even for consenting adults. I believe that societies that allow this will fall because of the psychological/cultural reasons even sooner, probably much sooner, than they do because of the genetic ones.
But the psychological and cultural reasons against allowing sexual relations between close relatives (as opposed to the genetic reasons) are difficult to explain. Indeed, they will probably sound "vague" to people, and the idea that allowing such relations will lead to cultural disaster will be deemed "speculative" and even laughed off as screaming "the sky is falling". Exactly the attitude you get from people when you argue that SSM will be culturally disastrous. "Tell me how exactly! Prove it! Until you do, it's just speculative noinsense!"
My question, to everyone but especially SSM advocates, is: If children born to closely related persons were not genetically harmed, would there still be a good reason to prohibit marriage, or even sex, between such persons? If so, what is that reason? If you can't think of, or can't explain the reason, are you then saying you would support marriage between closely related persons if the genetic problem was not a factor? And I'm talking about between consensual adults.
And, yes, this is relevant to the question of SSM.
Is this a trick question R.K.? What is this "vague" reason you allude to but refuse to name?
ReplyDeleteNo, not a trick question at all for defenders of true marriage, but again, I'm mainly asking it of neutered marriage proponents, though defenders of marriage can and should discuss it, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not saying that the genetic argument isn't important, it is; just that I think more than just that is involved.
In a nutshell, I believe that the sibling relationship, and the parent/child relationship, and even the uncle-aunt/nephew-niece relationship is important in socialization and culture...and they are all important as non-sexual relationships.
And when sexual relationship, or even attraction, or even the idea of possible attraction, is introduced into any of those relationships, it causes great damage emotionally and psychologically for children, but it is even damaging socially for adults. And if sexual relationships in any of those areas are accepted by society, it will wreak havoc on culture by destroying the meaning of those relationships. And this would be true even if there were no genetic dangers involved.
But note, without sitting down and typing for hours this is about as good as I can explain it, and I know it sounds "vague".
So, can any of you who are on my side in opposing neutered marriage help me out at all in making the argument more clear than I can? That's why I'm asking you as well.
But, as I think you can see, the fact that the argument is "vague" doesn't make it any less likely true.
But when I make similar arguments against SSM, that's always the response I get from its supporters: "Too vague! Nonsense!". But I think SSM will be a cultural disaster for reasons very similar to why cultural tolerance of sexual relations between close relatives would be a disaster. Of course, there are other reasons as well.
I guess what I'm saying is this: It's not unusual that universal cultural traits which most people naturally feel should not be changed are so often hard to explain and defend explicitly, as those who want to change them demand. But this does not mean that changing them is likely to be any less disastrous.
And Marty, excellent point you made:
Which makes me wonder WHY you brought up the fact that "there are prohibitions in Iowa against people who are all ready related through bloodlines, such as brothers, sisters, and 1st cousins" while simultaneously arguing that marriage doesn't have anything to do with children or procreation. Obviously it does have a great deal to do with that -- otherwise these laws against consanguinity would not be on the books.
And it's certainly fair to speculate just how long they can REMAIN on the books, considering the fact that they have absolutely no relevance to the same-sex variety of marriage. Surely it is unfair (ignorant and bigoted even) to prohibit 2 gay first cousins from "marrying"...x
Bingo.
And, Marty, I wasn't "refusing" to name the reason, it's just that I can't name or explain it more explicitly and am asking if the rest of you can help me out in this.
ReplyDeleteAgain in regard to whether it's a trick question....for advocates of neutered marriage, maybe so, in that I'm trying to demonstrate that there are still things which they (by and large) say they find "repugnant" and don't believe should be allowed, but for which the argument against allowing them is every bit as "vague" as they say our arguments against neutering marriage are, indeed even more so.
ReplyDeleteWhen arguments for universal traditions are "vague", it does not mean they are wrong, it means that our short life spans, indeed our limited cultural memory and experience and knowledge are just not enough to have figured out the complexities involved in explaining the exact steps by which A leads to B. But that does not mean A does not lead to B, and if no culture anywhere allows A it likely means that A leads to something with which culture cannot survive, particularly when A is something which by odds has to have been considered many times through human history.
RK, there are parrallels with the claims of SSMers. A phenomena known as Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).
ReplyDeleteThat is, people seem predisposed to an intense attraction to close relatives. It is not always sexualized, of course, but it can be experienced as an aphrodisiac by people who were seperated as children and reunited as adults.
But there is a more singificant issue here about SSM argumentation.
It is ironic that SSM argumentation emphasizes sexual orientation where there is no legal requirement of it in the marriage law -- nor in SSM law where it is enacted or imposed.
Yet we have all seen how SSMers will go on and on about legal requirements when negating the centrality of procreation and sex integration. They do so in the face of the two relevant legal requirements: the man-woman criterion, which they attack directly, and the marital presumption to which all consent who marry but which SSMers deeply undercut or ignore or disparage. The rules of SSM argumentation also deride tradition, social taboo, public morality, as the basis for lawmaking; and they insistently reject any legal limitation that is not absolutist in application.
The upshot is that SSM argumentation negates the sexual aspect of the public relationship. That is, marrige, in the rewrite of SSMers, becomes a nonsexual relationship, by type, and is pushed toward a private relaionship, by type. No public-sexual aspect is sustainable in SSM argumentation.
Of course, I usually make this clear and then point to the contradiction in the SSM campaign whereby supposedly the big concern is to battle the arbitrary use of licensing authority; yet when SSMers announce that they favor the limit of two unrelated people they intend for government to act arbitrarily. They have no rationale based on SSM argumenttion that could sustain those requirements -- the limitation of two and the limitation based on relatedness.
A lone individual could give consent to a contract with the state -- for the government is a party to each marriage it licenses. Indeed, society is a party to each relationship it accords the social and the legal status of marriage. But the limit of two bars consenting adults who'd rather be solo when licensed.
Heh. Of course, it also arbitrarily bars threesomes and moresomes. But SSMers have given up the concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation so they can not revive those concerns after a merger of SSM and marriage. Adding more people of the same sex does not decrease sex equality since such equality is irrelevant within an arrangement that excludes one sex -- or is neutral about sex differentiation.
Actually that raises another problem with SSM argumentation in terms of its special rules. Obvously, in terms of homosexuality, sex differentiation is considered of the utmost importance, sexually. And SSMers emphasize sexual orientation as the over-riding factor in assessing the marriage law. Yet, they would also reinforce and insist on a social taboo against "mixed orientation" marriages. They are sex-segregative and also segregative on the basis of sexual orientation. But the latter would be more a cultural imposition than a legal one. But it shows how SSM argumentation does not eschew social taboos even in its own emphasis on sexual orientation.
So, there are two angles on this topic that you highlighted.
1. SSM argumentation emphasizes sexual orientation and GSA may be a sexual orientation that is either immutable or extremely difficult to change. It appears to be inborn, naturally.
2. SSM arugmentation negates the public dimension of the sexual aspect of marriage. It must do this to negate sex integration and responsible procreation at the core of marraige; but it leaves nothing left at the core and so all lines drawn around the two-sexed core become unsustainable. SSM makes marriage sexless, by type, in the law.
So why would a culture consider some related people eligible and others ineligible if there is no public-sexual aspect to the relationship that is licensed? Siblings not be transgressing a social taboo.
But even if they were involved in incestuous sexual relations, SSMers usually shrug provided these are consenting adults.
Likewise with multi-marriage.
That means we can expect to see those two limitations eliminated -- maybe within a generation or so -- at least in the law.
For the nonsexualized relationships that could be licensed as "marraiges", there would be no harm probably. They would not really be forming marriages, afterall. But the harm would be in demoting marriage to meaninglessness.
And, for one-sexed arrangements, where concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation are moot, the shrug is understandable. Afterall, there is a long tradition within the openly homosexual segment of society whereby people make their own families. This is often due to their having been ostracized from their families of origin. So close friends, room-mates, and so forth are not off-limits when it comes to sexual behavior. This tradition even cements friendships in a sexual way. Indeed, intermittent sexual partnering among friends who are otherwise described as "family" is expected rather than seen as repugnant. Now, is this true of all adult homosexual people? Nope. But it is not intolerated the way that the rest of society rejects actual incest between family members. These social constructs are always undermined by the gay culture's proclivity toward "queering" -- testing and deconstructing cultural conventions and social norms.
The levels of analysis can seem endless in terms of the influence that SSM argumentation may have on the culture as a whole. Remember, the SSM campaign is definitely about redrawing boundaries. It is not about inclusion, really, but the exclusion of limitations.
RK, I dunno if this is what you were looking for, exactly, but let me know if you'd like to discuss this further.
Points 1 and 2 above, taken together, is my off-the-cuff answer to your query.
RK, we could look to Canada as the canary in the nearby mine.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-polygamy law of British Columbia is likely to be struck down by the judiciary there. Canada is not a "melting pot" but instead promotes multi-culturalism as the chief feature of its national ethos. It may be coincidental, but there has been major political pressure to reduce the age of majority for sexual relations. The low ferility rate of established Canadians is slightly offset by the much higher fertility rate of immigrant Canadians; and with the tolerance of polygamous practices that come with people from polygamous societies, the mix is bound toward significant changes that SSM argumentation left the Canaidan marriage culture virtually defenceless.
If I am correct, that the limitation of two and the limitation based on relatedness are unsustainable in the wake of a successful imposition of SSM through SSM argumentation, then, there will be a multiplier effect.
Where multi-marriage combine with relaxed rules regarding relatedness, societies tend toward fragmentation and tribalism -- or clannishness. And with it a subgroup can grow its share of the population and thus its influence both on the culture and the form of government.
Also, multi-marriage and relaxed rules about eligibility for related people tends to create pressures to lower the age limits.
First cousin marriage is the norm in the polygamous subgroups of societies that permit polygamy -- even giving the practice pride of place among the wealthy and powerful. The concerns about "inbreeding" are mitigated, somewhat, by the attainment of "harems". But the problem of sex integration is exacerbated when an increased portion of the male population is left to compete for a reduced portion of the female population. It also undermines sex equality across the board -- as young eligible women/girls are virtually commodified. Not all of a society would be dominated by these practices, but there is strong influence on all manner of public norms.
We have a very atomistic society and that is both a strength and a weakness. A strength when the marriage culture is healthy and robust. A weakness when other marriage practices -- those which are inferior forms of sex integration and responsible procreation -- exert a disproportionate influence because subgroups can be more homogenous and more cohesive, at least politically.
The core of marriage must have sustainable boundaries around it to protect it and to identify it and to give it prominence in a given culture and society.
What does this public relationship normalize? That is the key to the entire debate over marriage.
You'll notice that for me the main concern about the boundaries are about the impact on the so-called heterosexual population. As goes the 95% of the population, so goes the 5% that is openly homosexual. If the culture weakens, then everyone suffers.
How would SSM harm marriage? How could it not if the boundaries become unsustainable? And, empirical evidence seems to suggest, strongly, that marriage cultures that become polygamous and tribal are not very tolerant of homosexual behavior or even of religous liberty and freedom of conscience. Much is at stake, longterm, I think. But much may become evident in the medium term. Holland is the canary in the not-so-near-but-familiar mine across the pond. Canada is nearby. And, sadly, some states within the country have become canaries in our own mine.
Intersting sidenotes R. K.. I'd still like to hear from Vast before we go much further astray.
ReplyDeleteRK, to respond more directly to your specific question about inbreeding:
ReplyDeleteUnless we use genetic screening -- very intensely -- the problems of passing on genetic issues is very unpredictable.
The concern is more broad. That is, this or that particular couple may create children with problems, but most probably would not. The inbreeding issue appears more longterm, across multiple generations, where it occurs within an insular group or a sub-culture within a larger society.
The USA is so large that I am not sure how anyone could calculate the increased risk if it was dispersed across 300-plus million people.
However, we need to look at this particular problem of inbreeding in terms of exogamy and endogamy. That is, our American ethos is bsed on familial systems that are outward looking rather than inward looking. Hence, our culture discourages intra-marriage -- because of the core meaning of marrige and because of the tremendous influence that the social institution has on just about everything else, including the political ethos, our "civic religion".
We are a melting pot, culturally and socially, largely because the American ideal for marriage is NOT insular but encourages what sociologists call "out-marriage".
Think of it this way: there is inbreeding of the biological kind and there is inbreeding of the cultural kind.
In an open and very free society, tolerance depends more on cultural norms than on government force. Madison wrote about this in terms of factionalism. The Founders in general thought that the principle of restraint was embedded in Constitutional government -- perhaps as modelled in self-governance at the familial level. I think Locke wrote about this, too.
SSM argumentation is really about imposing a far-reaching change in the culture via a brazen change in the law.
When the Founders went about influencing the culture via the written Constitution, they recognized the nature of humankind rther than turning a blind eye nd depending instead of abstract idealism. So SSM argumention is a direct affront to that, too.
Consider the framework of checks and balances that the Founders envisaged and wrote into the highest law of the and; and contrast that with the negating of limitations and the core meaning of marraige that is intrinsic to SSM argumentation. The latter does not write into the law the thing they most emphasize: sexual orientation. But they would have judges amend the written constitution to read that very emphasis into the text that in no way includes it.
This goes back to the point about how SSM argumentation negates the public-sexual aspect of marriage. It attacks the legal requirements that do not fit the highly abstract ideal -- a rather implausible ideal in fact -- that is apaprently limitless and thus meaningless.
A social taboo on incest? A nonsexual taboo on that is meaningful, how?
Well, it is meaningful only in terms of the sex integration and responsible procreation -- both in terms of the sexual aspect of incest and in terms of the larger social/cultural implications of marriage.
Yes, Marty and RK, if this is a worthwhile discussion, let's lift it to a blogpost of its own.
ReplyDelete* * *
Vast, where are you?
RK, when you put up a new blogpost on that the subject you highlighted, I'll add some links that are directly relevant. Okay?
ReplyDeleteSure, Chairm, although as of right now I'm not able to start a brand new blogpost. I'd like very much to discuss this issue further, though...could you guys get in touch with me via E-mail?
ReplyDeleteThat means we can expect to see those two limitations eliminated -- maybe within a generation or so -- at least in the law.x
I agree.
The genetic argument against interrelated marriage is obvious but I believe there is an even stronger cultural argument against it which is unfortunately much harder to explain in explicit, step-by-step detail. In a nutshell, it is harmful for kids to grow up even thinking of the possibility of a sexual component to their familial relationships. Similarly, I think it is also harmful to even think of such a component to their friendships, particularly in early years....this is one thing SSM threatens to wreak havoc with.
You make many other excellent points, Chairm, and I may add some more detailed thoughts on them tomorrow morning.
Genetics is important but it's only part of it. One of the things I've long argued is that perception changes lead to other changes, which lead to other changes....in action or in perception....and so on, this is how the cookie crumbles. SSMers fail to appreciate the way that cultural changes affect other changes and can produce a cultural chain reaction which can result in things which they did not predict. This is what happens when you interfere with complex systems.
What gets me is why so many people who are supposed to be intelligent....judges, legislators, newscasters, artists....fail to see this simple truth, that culture is too complex a system for us to think that we somehow know that making an abrupt, major, unprecedented change to it is going to be more likely to affect it for the better rather than for the worse. Those educated people should know better, but they are a major part of the "cultural adolescence" which Charles Murray noted in a post I linked to here earlier.
Anyway, on the new blog, yes, good idea.