So I was piqued with interest when I read...
This striking new variety of intra-family conflict, described this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the latest wrinkle in the two-decades-old theory known as genomic imprinting, which holds that each parent contributes genes that seek to nudge his or her children's development in a direction most favorable, and least costly, to that parent.
I have a friend at work that is gay and works my nerves. I used some of what's said here under Defend Marriage Resources, thanks for that. Now he claims that traditionalists don't have any solutions on the table, they just want gays to go back in the closet. Can you offer me any solutions or compromises that are proposed that show this is not true?
ReplyDeleteThanks again. If there is another thread to post my quesitons on please let me know.
And for all the world, don't make this an argument with your co-worker. That is not what this is about. People on opposite sides of any situation can work on each other's nerves. Our goal is to collaborate and work together.
ReplyDeleteSo, in that spirit I ask what are the problems we can work together on to solve?
Jim, here is a compromise that has been proposed by me, which I have been pushing for five whole years now. No one on this site likes it, for different reasons not always clear, but be that as it may, what do you think of it, and what does your coworker think about it?
ReplyDeleteWell for one thing gay people say that they don't have equal rights like marriage. I've seen people say that they could marry the opposite sex which I find kind of insensitive as a response. Everybody knows a gay man isn't interested in marrying a woman. They want to be with other men. If they choose that path what kind of rights should they have for their relationship? Do we have the right to keep their partner out of the hospital when they are sick?
ReplyDeleteThese are the sort of questions I struggle with as a citizen feeling caught in the middle. I am resistant to changing my values but also want to be careful not to legislate them onto someone else. What answers can you give me that takes into consideration these people's right to follow their own drummer so to speak?
John, I'm not sure I understand your ideas. You want to ban something that doesn't exist yet? Sure, I guess I could go along with that but why is it part of marriage to you? Why not just make it a stand against cloning or genetic experiements?
It's part of marriage for the same reason we don't let incestuous couples marry. No couples that are publicly prohibited from procreating have ever been allowed to marry, because marriage has always meant public approval for procreating together.
ReplyDeleteIt is a stand against cloning and genetic experiments, and that includes same-sex conception experiments (which do exist, btw, and could be tried on humans today), so the ban would be a radical legal change in everyone's 'rights' or 'legal ability' from being free to procreate with people of both sexes, to only being free to procreate with the other sex. Given the radical difference in rights the ban on GE would create for same-sex couples, and the unique status of both-sex couples, separate names are called for for the institutions which bundle their rights.
If they choose that path what kind of rights should they have for their relationship?
ReplyDeleteAh, I think I see what you are saying the problem is. People outside of marriage, if they choose a mutually committed and trusting relationship, may not have it recognized for that trust and commitment. That hampers their ability to put trust in the other (for medical decisions and access, for example).
Yet people who have a marriage may be recognized for that commitment.
Have I restated the problem accurately?
Jim, the first thing to establish is the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. It is not defined by sexual orientation nor by gay identity politics.
ReplyDeleteMarriage integrates the sexes, provids for responsible procreation, and combines these essentials into a coherent whole (i.e. a foundational social institution of civil society). Marriage does more than license feelings. There are secondary and tertiary aspects of marriage but these hang together on the core. Without that core, marriage becomes meaningless as a social institution. And when foundational social institutions are emptied of meaning, they lose influence and are dismantled into bits and pieces -- lacking coherency.
What is SSM? What is its core meaning -- apart from gay identity politics? These questions are basically asking for SSMers to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. But the answers that come back are just as applicable to other nonmarital arrangements -- sexualized or not.
This shows that they seek to make marriage as meaningless as SSM -- in a societal sense -- and for them this is "equality". Marriage is distinguishable from nonmarriage but you wouldn't know that given what SSMers attack about marriage itself.
In our legal system we do have legal requirements that directly represent the core meaning: the man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; the marital presumption of paternity (the husband is legally presumed the father of his wife's children) stands for responsible procreation; and the law recognizes marriage as a nongovernment institution that society, via the government, privileges with a special status. That is to say, marriage has a special status for special reason. There is more than this, sure, but this is the core of the marriage issue.
continued
[continued]
ReplyDeleteSSMers emphasize a handful of things that do not distinguish SSM from nonmarriage and do not equate SSM with marriage.
They attack the centrality of responsible procreation with arguments that destroy their own demand for merging SSM with marital status. More importantly, they attack the sexual basis that makes marriage, at law, a public sexual relationship. They disparage the marital presumption of paternity, for example, and yet argue that SSM is a sexual relationship even though it lacks anything comparable to the sexual basis by which society, including the vigorously enforced law of paternity, presumes that the children of a marriage are the offspring of both the husband and wife.
So this SSM issue is not really about gayness since no gayness criterion would require an all-male or an all-female arrangement to engage in same-sex sexual behavior or even romance or attraction. Lacking this, there is nothing that SSMers have offered that would distinguish SSM from nonmarriage.
And there is a much wider range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships -- including millions of families with children -- that experience certain vulnerabilities. Sexual orientation -- or gay identity -- does not merit special treatment when it comes to providing for protections based on these vulnerabilities. But neither does it merit merging marital status with nonmarriage (of which SSM is a tiny subset).
Society needs to affirm the core of marriage and to strengthen the social institution. But this really depends on nongovernmental entities -- the government does not own marriage but it can support the institution or just get out of the way.
At the same time, because there are nonmarital families in need of protections, society can mitigate the vulnerabilities experienced -- to some extent -- without emptying marriage of its meaning. These vulnerabilities arise primarily due to a lack of (or a diminishment of) sex integration and responsible procreation. So we need to improve upon that -- by strengthening marriage -- while mitigating the problems that have arisen because of the recent decline of marriage is society.
SSM needs to stand on its own two feet and not be hoisted up on the back of marriage for a free ride. If SSM has merit, then, SSMers need to emphasize that instead of gay identity politics. And, I believe, when they drop that identity politics stuff what is left is a call for protections for nonmarital families. Call it, protection equality. And we already have provision for designated benficiaries. Maybe that can be bolstered -- made more accessible for example -- surley without imposing arbitrary limitations based on identity groups.
Jim, I think if you pursue your concerns with On Lawn, you will discover there are solutions to actual problems. SSM is a political solution looking for a problem to solve. It is unsound because it is driven by an ideological rejection of the core meaning of marriage.
ReplyDeleteJim, I'll save you the trouble; they don't have any solutions. The Opiners are content with the status quo and don't want any change what so ever. That's why they are didgin your question about solutions.
ReplyDeleteIt might be less painful for you if you go bang your head against a wall rather than expect honest dialog that brings about productive understanding here. ;)
BTW, I'n one of those pain in the ass gays like your work-mate that knows enough to question authority, too bad you don't.
John & Jim, I believe that the government, in general, should stay out of voluntary personal relationships between adults - so it isn't the role of the government to have "solutions" for everything that anyone thinks is a problem. There is a compelling reason for government to license marriage, because is usually results in someone who did not consent being subjected to the relationstip - children. This also is a reason why the government, and the society it represents, has an interest in promoting marriage and keeping it distinct for other kinds of voluntary relationships - because children born to and raised by a husband and wife tend to be better citizens than those born to shack-up lovers.
ReplyDelete"Well for one thing gay people say that they don't have equal rights like marriage. I've seen people say that they could marry the opposite sex which I find kind of insensitive as a response."
Not everyone is going to want to use every service offered by the state. Don't want to participate in a licensed marriage? You don't have to. You also don't have to get a driver's license, or go to a state university.
"Everybody knows a gay man isn't interested in marrying a woman. They want to be with other men."
And nobody is stopping them.
"If they choose that path what kind of rights should they have for their relationship?"
Well, in California, domestic partners are treated as spouses by the state and anything under the juridiction of the state. But what is the state's interest in these kinds of pairings? Not the same as a bride+groom pairing, that's for sure. Churches, businesses, etc. are free to recognize them as "marriage" if they choose to.
"Do we have the right to keep their partner out of the hospital when they are sick?"
This sounds like an issue that should be handled by hospitals. It sounds a little crass to say that marriage licensing is about hospital access.
"I am resistant to changing my values but also want to be careful not to legislate them onto someone else."
Great! State licensing is done on behalf of the people of a state. If the people of a state have made it clear how they want those licenses to be issued, then nobody else should impose upon them, right?
"What answers can you give me that takes into consideration these people's right to follow their own drummer so to speak?"
Same-sex couples can have a ceremony, exchange rings, change their names, live together, take a honeymoon, call themselves married, have joint accounts, etc. Nobody is stopping them. They can follow their drummer all they want. But a state license requires the consent of the governed.