Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity.
Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Three Items in Saturday's Los Angeles Times
Posted by
The Playful Walrus
In yesterday's Los Angeles Times, there were three items of note that relate to marriage neutering. I examine them together over on my namesake blog.
"Other proposals call for the church to develop and authorize blessing rites for such couples, and to amend church canons so that they use gender-neutral language in reference to marriage."
A question for neutered marriage advocates (and particularly for those who object to our use of that term): Does same-sex marriage necessarily require gender-neutral language in all references to marriage subject to the law? Explain why or why not. And, further, to what extent does it then require it in areas not subject to the law, if not legally, then merely for "cultural correctness"? Are you willing to explain this to the pubic when the issue of neutered marriage is put before them? Or will you try to evade the question?
Please don't squirm around a direct answer to the questions.
I really don't get how my marriage "neuters" some else's marriage, could someone help make that more clear?
"This claim of momentum by the marriage neutering crowd is wishful thinking."
In 1999 there was neither marriage, civil union, nor domestic partnership for any GLBT people anywhere in the United States. Since then we have made gains in our equality that is measurable, not simply wishful thinking. Perhaps this YouTube video can help shed truth to my claim:
Answer my question specifically, John, and stop squirming around it. You know what I'm referring to. "Party A", Party B", "Parent A", "Parent B", etc. That's neutering marriage.
I resent that you imply I am trying to get out of answering a question. That is not my intent and for you to assume so speaks poorly of you as well as me. We see the world in a very different light, is it so hard for you to imagine that someone simply can't relate to your line of thinking? When you claim "neutering" marriage is a social harm I imagined it would be much more than seeing Party A and Party B on a civil marriage application or birth certificate. That doesn't sound like harm to me, it sounds like symantics.
How about you answer my question and tell me how this harms people?
Again, let's avoid ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I expect each side to be a little snarky with the other because there is a fundamental lack of respect that comes from our opposing views, let's just set the ground rules for contructive dialog shall we?
I'd like to hear from you clearly that you will abandon this behavior, but I may continue talking even if you do not since I've come to expect this from this website through past experience.
John : I resent that you imply I am trying to get out of answering a question. That is not my intent and for you to assume so speaks poorly of you as well as me.
How hard is it to answer the question? You asked what I meant by neutering marriage. (And I have answered in another thread, although I will repeat it here as well). Well, the neutering of language relating to marriage, whether legal or cultural, is a major part of what I mean and hence very relevant to the question. Hence, in order to proceed with the question you asked of me, I simply asked you if legalizing same-sex marriage requires the neutering of all language relating to marriage. You could have answered in several ways:
1. You could have answered yes, that it does require the neutering of the language, and explained why you believe it does.
2. You could have answered no, that it does not, and explained why you believe it does not.
3. You could have answered "sometimes yes, sometimes no", and explained this as well.
4. You could have answered that you don't know, and that a lawyer or somebody else in a better position would be better equipped to answer.
5. You could have said that you don't choose to answer the question, though this would still be begging the question of why.
As I have stated in the other thread, by neutering of marriage I mean the perception that marriage has nothing to do with gender, that, as a cultural definition, it is merely between "any two persons".
Is this not the perception you want the culture to have of marriage, John?
And, yes, it will almost certainly harm people and society. Because it further breaks the perceived link between marriage and procreation it will likely cause more children to be born outside of marriage, and there have been many studies showing that such children do worse on average. It will likely thus cause more children to be raised without a father, or without a mother.
As for divorce, the dropping of the marriage rate may mask or even appear to reduce the divorce rate at first, but eventually it can not help to reduce it and may even cause it to go up. Because neutering marriage will likely only further reinforce the belief that "you should not be married unless you are maximally sexually attracted", which many will interpret with the word "still" added. (I know, we've already come to this point for other reasons, but neutering marriage can only make it worse). It will also likely lead to an increase in jealousy, as increasingly people will be suspicious of their spouse's same-gender friends.
It will also likely affect children growing up by blurring the distinction between friendship and romantic/sexual attraction. Among other things, this in turn will destroy the "latency period" of children's development, when they need to develop the former and sublimate the latter.
All of these effects are harmful, as psychiatrists have noted over the years. I don't have the links to all the articles I have seen over the years which have demonstrated this point.
But I know what you're response will be, John: "Prove it! It hasn't happened yet in Massachusetts"
Actually, some of it has (the high rate of unmarried persons, and some of the things PW noted in his thread), but as we have said over and over (and, via my quote from Prof. Goldberg, explained why), the changes likely will be generational, not immediate. By this I mean that we should not really expect to see the changes until a generation has grown up with the neuterized conception of marriage. In other words, about 30 years. And then, it may take about another decade before social scientists are able to sort out all the data for cause-and-effect.
But besides this I do not accept your idea of burden of proof. When a radical and untested change is proposed for a highly complex system like the environment, economy, or the culture, the burden of proof is not on opponents of the change to prove it is harmful, it is on proponents of the change to prove it is not. Otherwise it is analagous to putting an untested chemical into the water or air, and saying that because no harm was shown immediately over a small area, therefore the chemical must be applied worldwide. And, while it may be debatable when to consider a change "radical", in cultural matters at least one measure of this is when the new idea has never been observed long-term in any past society, especially when the concept is so easy that the argument that "nobody ever thought of it" is extremely unlikely.
Again, let's avoid ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments
I will gladly avoid them both, John, but I cannot guarantee that what you see as being an ad hominem attack or a straw man argument is always going to be something I will see as such. Point out to me where you think I have made such arguments, and I may well agree and apologize. Or I may not agree that they qualified as such, in which case I will explain why.
"Other proposals call for the church to develop and authorize blessing rites for such couples, and to amend church canons so that they use gender-neutral language in reference to marriage."
ReplyDeleteA question for neutered marriage advocates (and particularly for those who object to our use of that term): Does same-sex marriage necessarily require gender-neutral language in all references to marriage subject to the law? Explain why or why not. And, further, to what extent does it then require it in areas not subject to the law, if not legally, then merely for "cultural correctness"? Are you willing to explain this to the pubic when the issue of neutered marriage is put before them? Or will you try to evade the question?
Please don't squirm around a direct answer to the questions.
I really don't get how my marriage "neuters" some else's marriage, could someone help make that more clear?
ReplyDelete"This claim of momentum by the marriage neutering crowd is wishful thinking."
In 1999 there was neither marriage, civil union, nor domestic partnership for any GLBT people anywhere in the United States. Since then we have made gains in our equality that is measurable, not simply wishful thinking. Perhaps this YouTube video can help shed truth to my claim:
GLBT rights by state from 1972 to present
Answer my question specifically, John, and stop squirming around it. You know what I'm referring to. "Party A", Party B", "Parent A", "Parent B", etc. That's neutering marriage.
ReplyDeleteI resent that you imply I am trying to get out of answering a question. That is not my intent and for you to assume so speaks poorly of you as well as me. We see the world in a very different light, is it so hard for you to imagine that someone simply can't relate to your line of thinking? When you claim "neutering" marriage is a social harm I imagined it would be much more than seeing Party A and Party B on a civil marriage application or birth certificate. That doesn't sound like harm to me, it sounds like symantics.
ReplyDeleteHow about you answer my question and tell me how this harms people?
Again, let's avoid ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I expect each side to be a little snarky with the other because there is a fundamental lack of respect that comes from our opposing views, let's just set the ground rules for contructive dialog shall we?
I'd like to hear from you clearly that you will abandon this behavior, but I may continue talking even if you do not since I've come to expect this from this website through past experience.
Hosty-G: In 1999 there was neither marriage, civil union, nor domestic partnership for any GLBT people anywhere in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThat is a lie. Marriage has been available to everyone regardless of any letter(s) they pin to their chest since well before 1999.
That Hosty cannot debate without falling back on these tired old lies speaks volumes.
John : I resent that you imply I am trying to get out of answering a question. That is not my intent and for you to assume so speaks poorly of you as well as me.
ReplyDeleteHow hard is it to answer the question? You asked what I meant by neutering marriage. (And I have answered in another thread, although I will repeat it here as well). Well, the neutering of language relating to marriage, whether legal or cultural, is a major part of what I mean and hence very relevant to the question. Hence, in order to proceed with the question you asked of me, I simply asked you if legalizing same-sex marriage requires the neutering of all language relating to marriage. You could have answered in several ways:
1. You could have answered yes, that it does require the neutering of the language, and explained why you believe it does.
2. You could have answered no, that it does not, and explained why you believe it does not.
3. You could have answered "sometimes yes, sometimes no", and explained this as well.
4. You could have answered that you don't know, and that a lawyer or somebody else in a better position would be better equipped to answer.
5. You could have said that you don't choose to answer the question, though this would still be begging the question of why.
As I have stated in the other thread, by neutering of marriage I mean the perception that marriage has nothing to do with gender, that, as a cultural definition, it is merely between "any two persons".
Is this not the perception you want the culture to have of marriage, John?
(Continued from above)
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, it will almost certainly harm people and society. Because it further breaks the perceived link between marriage and procreation it will likely cause more children to be born outside of marriage, and there have been many studies showing that such children do worse on average. It will likely thus cause more children to be raised without a father, or without a mother.
As for divorce, the dropping of the marriage rate may mask or even appear to reduce the divorce rate at first, but eventually it can not help to reduce it and may even cause it to go up. Because neutering marriage will likely only further reinforce the belief that "you should not be married unless you are maximally sexually attracted", which many will interpret with the word "still" added. (I know, we've already come to this point for other reasons, but neutering marriage can only make it worse). It will also likely lead to an increase in jealousy, as increasingly people will be suspicious of their spouse's same-gender friends.
It will also likely affect children growing up by blurring the distinction between friendship and romantic/sexual attraction. Among other things, this in turn will destroy the "latency period" of children's development, when they need to develop the former and sublimate the latter.
All of these effects are harmful, as psychiatrists have noted over the years. I don't have the links to all the articles I have seen over the years which have demonstrated this point.
But I know what you're response will be, John: "Prove it! It hasn't happened yet in Massachusetts"
Actually, some of it has (the high rate of unmarried persons, and some of the things PW noted in his thread), but as we have said over and over (and, via my quote from Prof. Goldberg, explained why), the changes likely will be generational, not immediate. By this I mean that we should not really expect to see the changes until a generation has grown up with the neuterized conception of marriage. In other words, about 30 years. And then, it may take about another decade before social scientists are able to sort out all the data for cause-and-effect.
But besides this I do not accept your idea of burden of proof. When a radical and untested change is proposed for a highly complex system like the environment, economy, or the culture, the burden of proof is not on opponents of the change to prove it is harmful, it is on proponents of the change to prove it is not. Otherwise it is analagous to putting an untested chemical into the water or air, and saying that because no harm was shown immediately over a small area, therefore the chemical must be applied worldwide. And, while it may be debatable when to consider a change "radical", in cultural matters at least one measure of this is when the new idea has never been observed long-term in any past society, especially when the concept is so easy that the argument that "nobody ever thought of it" is extremely unlikely.
Again, let's avoid ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments
I will gladly avoid them both, John, but I cannot guarantee that what you see as being an ad hominem attack or a straw man argument is always going to be something I will see as such. Point out to me where you think I have made such arguments, and I may well agree and apologize. Or I may not agree that they qualified as such, in which case I will explain why.
R.K., thanks for your concise explanations.
ReplyDeleteWell, you're welcome, PW, but really I think I've only scratched the iceberg on all the problems that may result. I'm sure there are far more.
ReplyDelete