My fellow Opiner, On Lawn, will be blogtalking tonight.
See: Family Values Blog Talk Radio
Live at 9pm PST, 7-May-2009.
Open Discussion Night.
Join Angela and On Lawn of Opine Editorials for an open discussion tonight at 9pm PST. All viewpoints welcome.
Call in or join the conversation by chat. We’ll be talking about the new poll that’s come out in New Hampshire as well as the current movement in Maine for a people’s veto of the new same-sex marriage legislation that was just passed this week.
Five states now recognize same-sex marriage, but will the people stand for it?
Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION: 347- 215-6801
Hi there. Why do you think that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage? Can you address and refute the following argument?
ReplyDeleteYesterday at 11:25 PM
Reply with quote #1
Those who contend that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage need to address and refute the following argument.
(1). The existence of heterosexual marriages--for existing married heterosexual couples (henceforth HSC)--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(2). The existence of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(3). The personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(4). The personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
---------------------------
(5). Therefore, heterosexual marriages are not threatened by homosexual marriages.
(6). Therefore, traditional marriage is not threatened by gay marriage.
Those who declare (1) to be false must demonstrate that heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--could cease to exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?
Those who declare (2) to be false must demonstrate that potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--might not exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?
Those who declare (3) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is threatened by homosexual marriages. Who can make such an argument?
Those who declare (4) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--would be threatened simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?
Those who accept (1)-(4) but declare (5) to be false have a difficult task ahead of them: they must articulate the threat posed by heterosexual marriages to existing and potential heterosexual marriages--for existing married and unmarried HSC--not covered under (1)-(4). But what could that threat be? Who can articulate and demonstrate such a threat?
Those who accept (1)-(5) but declare (6) to be false need to articulate the distinction between the concept of heterosexual marriage and traditional marriage. Who can articulate and defend such a distinction?
(1). The existence of heterosexual marriages--for existing married heterosexual couples (henceforth HSC)--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.x
ReplyDelete1. Supporters of true marriage have not even been arguing otherwise. It's a straw man argument. Those already married have internalized the heterosexual perception of marriage and are likely to retain that perception internally for a while.
2). The existence of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.x
2. But this is where I disagree. Those heterosexuals who internalize the new androgynous perception of marriage will very likely feel less drawn to it because it no longer has a specific relation to their whole motivation for being together...an attraction between a man and a woman and a desire to have their own children together. Once marriage is no longer seen as being about that, and gay marriage will have that effect, the motivation for heterosexuals will be reduced because the institution is no longer relating to their kind of love.
(3). The personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.x
3. Again, these couples have already internalized the traditional concept of marriage. Still, once it sinks in that society regards their marriages as no better than a union which not only cannot possibly produce its own children, but cannot even engage in the one act which has the potential of doing so, for many it will be seen as society devaluing their marriages.
(4). The personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.x
4. Very much disagree. For those internalizing the neutered definition of marriage, getting married will be of no more meaning than just having sex together, and perhaps not even that. After all, now their marriages are seen as no better than those that cannot possibly have their own children together. Also, the biological reason for sexual exclusivity within marriage will be of no meaning to homosexual couples, and if their marriages are "equal", then this attitude will continue to spill over into heterosexual marriages as well. Another likely way these marriages will be corrupted: Jealousy will not only be exhibited toward a spouse's opposite-sex acquaintances, but increasingly toward their same-gender friends, seriously straining an important social relationship which is still necessary for married people (men as well as women), and thus causing further friction in the marriage as well.
(5). Therefore, heterosexual marriages are not threatened by homosexual marriages.x
(6). Therefore, traditional marriage is not threatened by gay marriage.x
Wrong. At the very least, you can not be so certain of that. Read this (from someone who is a neutral on the issue):
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality, RL.
The above are my predictions. But I will also predict that there will be damages that I did not predict.
A big problem I see with neutered marriage advocates is their refusal to see how each change leads to other changes, sometimes totally unpredictable. As with any major, untested, unprecedented change to a complex system, by nature we can expect that the unpredicted damages of neutering marriage will likely well outnumber any unpredicted benefits.
------------------
ReplyDeleteThose heterosexuals who internalize the new androgynous perception of marriage will very likely feel less drawn to it because it no longer has a specific relation to their whole motivation for being together...an attraction between a man and a woman and a desire to have their own children together.
----------------------
1. The above falsely assumes that all heterosexual couples are primarily drawn to marriage because they want children.
2. The above assumes - without argument - that heterosexual couples are less likely to want children as a result of gay marriages.
---------------
For those internalizing the neutered definition of marriage, getting married will be of no more meaning than just having sex together, and perhaps not even that.
---------------
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
Same sex marriage has worked quite well in Massachusetts for 5 years. People are still getting married there at an average rate.
ReplyDeleteThe article posted in this link http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Is incorrect on both the historical nature of marriage and on the nature of polygamy when it makes this statement.
"Also, a lot of readers are saying that I'm wrong about marriage always being between a man and a woman, citing polygamy. I have been told this is a "basic factual error."
No, it's not. Polygamous societies do not (at least in any society I have ever heard about) have group marriages. Men with more than one wife have multiple marriages with multiple women, not a single marriage with several wives. In fact, they generally take pains to separate the women, preferably in different houses. Whether or not you allow men to contract for more than one marriage (and for all sorts of reasons, this seems to me to be a bad idea unless you're in an era of permanent war), each marriage remains the union of a man and a woman."
Through out our history there have been many variations on legal marriage including same-sex marriage as it was practiced by the Greeks, Romans, and Aztecs in Ancient times, and by the Chinese well into the 18th century. There is even a part of China where today marriage is driven solely by the woman and where she is allowed to change husbands on a daily basis. While that is still a woman/man relationship it is still far different than the Traditional Marriage of Western Society.
Also, polygamist societies rarely set up separate house holds for each wife. Evidence of this can be found in almost any polygamist marriage that exists in the middle east and in the few sects of the Church of Later Day Saints that do still practice polygamy such as the one in Texas that was in the news so recently.
Vast, you are over-reaching in your remarks about the ancient Greek, Roman, and Aztec civilizations. Your example in China is too vague.
ReplyDeleteSo on one hand you are being very loose with the evidence when speaking of marriage in other cultures and on the other hand you are being rather narrow-minded when speaking of marriage in western civilization.
The man-woman basis is not a tradition. It is a universal feature at the core of marriage. It is combined with bonding fathers with mothers with children.
You are also exagerating when you use the descriptor "rarely" to describe polygamous practices in modern times. Further, the example you gave in Texas includes a practice that is very nearly a form of group marriage.
* * *
We could discuss those things in another blogpost on the actual topics.
That aside, you asserted that "People are still getting married there [in Masschusetts] at an average rate."
1. What is the trend for the rate for man-woman unions?
2. What is the trend for the rate for man-man unions?
3. What is the trend for the rate for woman-woman unions?
Take care. The bloggers on this site have a good grasp of this topic you have brought up here.
RL: 1. The above falsely assumes that all heterosexual couples are primarily drawn to marriage because they want children.x
ReplyDeleteFalse. I never said or assumed that "all" heterosexual couples are drawn to marriage for that reason. My point is not contingent on "all" couples being so drawn. And you did not ask me to demonstrate or argue that "all" hetero couples would fail to marry or have their marriages devalued. Oh, of course, I could have inserted the words "most" or "many" before my statement but it really wasn't necessary.
2. The above assumes - without argument - that heterosexual couples are less likely to want children as a result of gay marriages.x
False. That was not my argument. My argument was that they would be less likely to associate children with marriage, because the new definition breaks that association.
For those internalizing the neutered definition of marriage, getting married will be of no more meaning than just having sex together, and perhaps not even that.
Please provide evidence for this assertion.x
Provide evidence! It's the new definition of marriage! It's no longer related just to the one form of sex that can produce children, it's unofficially just related to anything that can be called "sex", and officially not even that. Are you saying that the new definition is not going to be internalized in the next generation? Are you saying that whatever the definition of marriage is in a culture, it does not get internalized? If it does, no more evidence is necessary.
And Vast, internalization culturally takes a lot longer than just five years.
Vast: Through out our history there have been many variations on legal marriage including same-sex marriage as it was practiced by the Greeks, Romans, and Aztecs in Ancient times, and by the Chinese well into the 18th century.x
Absolutely nothing like what is being proposed today. Marriage was not culturally defined as being just between any two persons, in those or any society that lasted any length.
The statements McArdle made about polygamous societies was tangential to the main point of her article. Please try to refute the main point...which is about just the kinds of arguments Radical Logic is making.
The argument that goes like this: "I can't see why anything bad could happen. If I can't see it, we should assume nothing will go wrong. If you think something will go wrong, please tell me exactly what will go wrong and exactly how, and prove that it will go wrong, or err on the assumption that all will go right".
It is the permeation of this putrid logic throughout elite society (particularly among celebrities and the media) that is responsible for their falling for the neutered marriage crusade like a herd of lemmings. And we will not turn the corner toward sanity with respect to cultural issues, tradition, and unprecedented changes until this absurd assumption is exposed as the logical fraud that it is, which is why I keep bringing it up, even if in doing so I may seem reduntant.
Radical: 1. The above falsely assumes that all heterosexual couples are primarily drawn to marriage because they want children.
ReplyDeleteWrong. It presumes only that any are. You didn't read the link R.K. provided, did you?
2. The above assumes - without argument - that heterosexual couples are less likely to want children as a result of gay marriages.
Wrong, again. Not relevant to, let alone reasonably inferred from the statement given.
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
This coming from someone whose entire argument can be summed up as four unsubstantiated premises followed by two clear non sequiturs. Even if your conclusions were properly drawn from your premises, none of those premises even can be substantiated since each make an absolute claim about a future world which does not even exist yet.
All of which R.K. told you already. Go reread.
Sorry, R.K. Looks like our responses to Radical crossed.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, op-ed. The more the better.
ReplyDeleteR.K.: And Vast, internalization culturally takes a lot longer than just five years.
ReplyDeleteFrom Nothing Bad Has Happened So Far...:
"The statement was as ludicrous then as it is now, akin to the man who jumped from the World Trade Center who was heard to exclaim around the 30th floor, 'Nothing bad has happened so far.' OnLawn quipped in response 'There's a bumper sticker for you: Gay Marriage - It hasn't ended civilization, yet.'
"Neutered marriagists have been anxious to draw the finish line on their little experiment in Massachusetts ever since. Perhaps, sensing the splat fast approaching, they want to feel somehow not responsible. ..."
I just read two really good posts that apply.
ReplyDeleteFor Mr. Fortune-Teller: The Subprime Marriage Analogy (hattip Beetle Blogger)
And for Mr. See-no-evil: Massed Up. (From Opine's own Playful Walrus)
Here is a message I am sending to the cold hearted.
ReplyDelete"I apologize for wanting to be happy.
I apologize for wanting others to be happy.
I apologize for using the words "love", "happiness", and "commitment" when trying to define marriage.
I apologize for my unselfishness.
I apologize for coming out nearly three years ago.
I apologize for being happier since I came out, I should have soaked myself in tears the last three years.
I apologize for being Christian and a lesbian.
I apologize for using the word "Christ" in my personal blog and my main website to teach love and forgiveness. I should have done what many others do and use the bible to preach hate and intolerance toward others. I mean after all, control over others is better than love, right?
I apologize for wanting to try to reason with or bring the man-made religious intolerant and uncompassionate rulers to their knees. We should let them climb all over us, I should have just let them continue to climb all over me in my own family.
I apologize for being an individual.
I apologize for not shutting up and following blindly.
I apologize for offering encouragement.
I apologize for living and loving.
I apologize for having a heart.
I apologize for having some sort of a brain. Though others I know are definately smarter than I am but working together and learning from them seemed quite cool.
I apologize for wanting to work together as a team and accomplish something incredible.
I apologize for wanting to be unique.
I apologize for wanting to be special.
I apologize for feeling special.
I apologize for Out In Wisconsin.
I apologize for feeling like I'm actually doing something right in my life for once.
Most importantly, I apologize for actually being me."
Keep in mind, when I wrote this on my own blog I was being sarcastic. I'm not really apologizing and neither should I or anyone else in my position. I'm through with any guilt trips the anti-gay people here want to place on me and my kind for any of this. The fact that you cold hearts cannot accept us for who we are and that we are humans with emotion is why you're bickering here about the marriage thing nearly every day on opine. It really isn't about the marriage rights at all for you, or any kind of real definition of marriage. You try to do whatever you can to maintain superiority over us. People like you bash us, beat us, rape us and kill us.
Same sex marriage does not ruin het marriage. Divorce rates have been skyrocketing amoung het marriage. Hardly ever do you find het marriages anymore to be fully committed to each other and to love one another for the rest of their lives like they think they will. But the people involved in same-sex marriage have been wanting to make a commitment and show their love for all to see for so long now that many of them have that true love that lasts a lifetime. LGBT understand the value of marriage more than alot of cold hearts here on this blog who claim they are trying to defend marriage.
You people are destroying your own marriages in the world of today. We don't need to do that one for you. We have our own lives to live and are trying to live them to the fullest. But this is something cold hearts will not understand, and probably never understand. I'm just talking to a brick wall here. I think I'd rather stand and talk to a real brick wall and look crazy. It is hard and cold, but a real brick wall is warmer than you.
Divorce rates have been skyrocketing amoung het marriage.This did not happen because they were heterosexual. It happened because of social changes, often pressed by law with good intentions, which caused the public perception of marriage to change and caused it to mean less. Same-sex marriage takes this trend and takes it one huge step further. Your softness and warmth may define you, and even your relationship, but it has nothing to do with the ripple effects of changing the meaning of the institution, which is a different question entirely.
ReplyDelete"I know this change will be right for everyone because it feels so right and wonderful for me" is a total non sequitur. And yes, I know that sounds "cold". But then, so does the idea of children intentionally deprived of mothers or fathers.
I apologize for having a wonderful mother and father.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for hoping other children, as much as possible, also have a wonderful mother and father.
I apologize for trying to at least encourage others, when possible, to seek out a relationship in which as a result of their love (not just a test tube) they might have children of their own.
I apologize for not wanting a part in screwing up the future for millions, even if it felt good for myself.
Yes, I apologize for being so cold as to feel that way.
Hi Kim. Thank you for your feedback.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is something you want from me and others - namely, a state marriage license. But just because you want something from us does not obligate us to provide it.
I'm a resident of California, and I'd really like another degree... say from, say, University of California Los Angeles. But you know, from an early age, I've known I have no interest in studying, doing school work, or taking tests. I will not settle for an honorary degree - that's separate. I want a degree from UCLA. Are they obligated to issue one to me?
I am not demanding that people stop living as they choose. I'm not asking anyone to keep their feelings private.
Heterosexuality is normative, is more common that homosexuality, and heterosexual behavior is how all of us got here. So whether or not there is anything immoral about homosexual behavior, society isn't going to, by default, give it the same attention and acceptance and glorification or what have you as heterosexuality.
"Same sex marriage does not ruin het marriage."
This is the same thing as saying labeling bottles of tap water as milk does not ruin milk.
What if I were to start a "GSA" that only taught and distributed material from NARTH? That wouldn't hurt other GSAs, would it?
"I understand that there is something you want from me and others - namely, a state marriage license. But just because you want something from us does not obligate us to provide it."
ReplyDeleteThe 14th amendment requires exactly that; full equality under the law. GLBT people now have 5 states they can get married in that agree with me, and by the end of this month there will be more. You cannot hold onto the idea that you have the right to deny people their equality because that was never the intention of the Constitution, and I expect the ruling in California will only reinforce that inturpretation of law.
Hate has no place in our laws and those who support discrimination support hate.
There is equal treatment/access under either bride-groom licensing or neutered licensing. Whether or not someone wants to exercise that access does not mean the access isn't there.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to argue equal treatment as a paartnership... well, states treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently all of the time, and these ARE different kids of associations. Businesses are treated differently than nonprofits. Corporations are treated differently than partnerships.
There are many licenses issued in one state that are not valid in other states, including licenses related to business, law, medicine, driving, hunting, and gun ownership.
JHG do you support any laws or are you determined to be indiscriminate 100%?
ReplyDeleteFor the marriage law, would you continue the lines drawn which make some consenting adults eligible and others not?
You know the limitations: those based on number, on relatedness, and having been previously married, and on maturity. These are not arbitrary but are based on the significance of the core meaning of marriage.
The man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; the marital presumption of paternity stands for the provision of responsible procreation; and the government recognizes a foundational social institution of civil society.
Limitations on eligibility are based on these three central aspects that combine togeher to form a coherent whole. We have legal requirements that you attack but you offer no core meaning in its place.
So if you are really concerned about equality, rather than false equivalence, you'd explain why the one-sexed relationship, as a type of relationship or as a kind of living arrangement, merits special treatment of any kind at all.
Is it supposed to be a reward for certain sexual behavior or certain kinds of feelings? And are there legal requirements that make that mandatory for each and every person who shows up for a license for an all-male or an all-female relationship or arrangement?
Nope. You talked about this before and haven't been able to explain the sort of equality that would be based on false equivalencies. You would discriminate but haven't the courage to own that discrimination outright.
Hosty-G: The 14th amendment requires exactly that; full equality under the law.Marriage is equal. Neutering it is not. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that marriage in no way violates the 14th Amendment. You're about 40 years behind the times, Hosty.
ReplyDelete