While there have been various restrictions on marriage (and the dissolution of marriages) through the centuries and around the world, and various ways people found a spouse, one of the only constants has been that marriage unites the two sexes. This has been true even in societies that did not consider homosexuality to be immoral or rare. Uniting the sexes is what makes marriage marriage. Mutual physical attraction or romantic love does not distinguish marriage from nonmarital relationships. Those things are not even required to obtain a marriage license, and if they had been what makes marriage marriage, than most marriages throughout history would not have been marriages from the start, such as many arranged marriages.
That something has undergone some changes over time does not require us to support any change that someone proposes.
A brideless or groomless pairing is simply not marriage. It is something else – something lacking the essence of marriage. It is no more marriage than a man is "gay" if he is, and has always been, attracted to women and not men, and never engages in homosexual behavior.
"A brideless or groomless pairing is simply not marriage."
ReplyDeleteIn several places in the world this statement is factually incorrect.
The meaning of marriage has changed significantly threw the years, it has not been a subtle or nuanced change. As late as the 1800's we had laws on the books that women were not allowed to own even the clothes on their backs. They were for all purposes chattel, property of passing from one male owner (her father) to another (her husband).
If you decide to take love out of marriage you still have a contract that pairs a couple for life, sharing in each other's experiences throughout the journey. The measure of that contract is as varied as any other contract out there, and is different from one culture to the next.
My thoughts on the opposition to same sex marriage is the same advice I give people who are against abortion; if you are opposed, don't have one! ;) (btw, I'm opposed)
So, John, tell me, what do you think IS the one constant thing about marriage through history, and which should stay that way? Note, through history, so don't say "love" or "betwen two people" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of abortion, the unborn child had no say in whether or not to forfiet her life. In the case of SSM, the adults chose not to marry but to form a one-sexed alternative. The child had no choice. In SSM the adults reject marriage -- indeed SSM argumentation opposes marriage. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes SSM "marriage" in those places?
ReplyDeleteA license from the government. Nothing more than that. It is a facade.
SSM argumentation relies on the abritrary use of governmental power to impose upon society the false equivalence of nonmarriage and marriage.
Ask an SSMer to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category and he will point to the license and nothing else. Thus the SSM category is arbitrary.
Ask an SSMer to explain the essentials, the universal features, the core meaning of the social institution of marriage and he will shrug and say that none of that exists.
Indeed, he will insist that it has never existed. His evidence is that marriage has varied in this way or that.
The arbitrariness of SSM is supposedly premised on the abitrariness of a state license to marry.
Of course, to say something has varied one must first identify the thing itself. Then, one can track the variations. With marriage the variations help to identify the universal features. It is like watching for the stationary pier amongst the moving waves at the shoreline.
JHG's comment has briefly described, from his viewpoint, this and that variation of sex integration. That there are different, or indeed inferior, forms of sex integration does not negate the central fact that at its core marriage has continued to unite the sexes.
But what is the societal significance of SSM? Sex-segregation? Disparagement of marriage?
ReplyDeleteIt appears to be entirely wrapped-up in asserting supremacy via gay identity politics. That's its societal signficance. And wherever SSM has been merged with marriage, this supremacy has been imposed over more than marriage law.
The SSM campaign attacks and seeks to suppress the core meaning of marriage. This removes the special reason for the special status of marriage (marital status is a preferential status and goes beyond protective and tolerative statuses). SSM argumentation is a rejection of marriage, not an embrace.
A license to SSM is not a license to marry. It is a license for some alternative which has no justification other than identity politics.
This is no mistake. SSM argumentation insists that the man-woman criterion of marriage is anti-thetical to their brand of identity politics. SSMers begin with their hostility toward society's foundational social institution; hostility toward the most pro-child institution we have; not because they are anti-marriage at heart, but because they are in favor of asserting gay identity politics over and above all else.
A license to SSM is a license for such politics to become embedded, and thus innoculated from legitimate opposition. It is a throwback to the days of racialist identity politics which also abused marriage for a blatantly nonmarriage purpose.
This distinguishes SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. That is what the SSM license signifies. This is so wherever SSM has been merged with marriage. Each time an SSMer points to such locales, he points away from marriage and right into the face of gay identity politics.
Instead of looking for the pier on shore, he turns and gets lost at sea. Hence the ahistorical rhetoric about marital status being an aimless journey rather than a destination where people enter the social institution.
RK, one of the constants I've seen in marriage is that it is a legal contract acknowledged by both religion and government granting rights, priveledges and responsibilities to those who enter into one.
ReplyDeleteChairm, did you notice that your last statements are rather stereotyping of GLBT people? All people are individuals and have their own reasons for what they believe and act upon, be they gay or straight. No one is following an agenda or wants to bring about social chaos, we all want the same things.
Safety is a big part of the GLBT movement. If the moral majority would have done a better job protecting GLBT people from unwarranted physical violence many of us activists would not be active. Safety is one of those elements that can motivate people from all backgrounds to a common cause, like we are now.
Equality is also a big part of the argument. Our Constitution calls for all people to be treated equal, yet it is obvious we are not. If you are interested in the story go over to drivingequality.com and read about Chris Mason's encounter with the police. They performed an illegal search of his vehicle, keeping him detained for now known reason, however Chris did mention his journey and his documentary on GLBT rights across America.
All things being equal I fight for a day when both you and I are given the respect our actions afford. This is in my opinion the most fair standard one can have in law.
My comment was about SSMers. Not all SSMers are GLBT. SSMers are SSM[support]ers regardless of sexual proclivities.
ReplyDeleteFurther, not all GLBT are SSMers.
ReplyDeleteStereotyping is built-into your thinking, it seems.
Meanwhile, JHG, your contention at the top of this discussion has been answered with a direct challenge.
ReplyDeleteWhat, if anything, is a universal feature of SSM?
Marriage is not SSM.
Your talk of equality is talk of equating SSM with marriage via a government license.
The challenge to the SSM campaign is to show how, pre-license, the arrangement you have in mind is distinguishable from all other nonmarital arrangements.
Society has long distinguished marriage from nonmarriage. Marriage is a social institution that pre-exists government licensing. It has a core.
When you deny that there is a core, you do so because SSM lack a core. Throwing away the core of marraige, you think, is the best way to equate SSM with marriage. But in so doing, you equate SSM with all of nonmarriage.
It is an anti-social goal, JHG, to flatten marriage so that it becomes indistinguishable from nonmarriage.
Indeed, it is anti-equality to elevate identity politics above marriage and to demand that identity politics be pressed into the marriage law and into constitutonal jurisprudence.
False equivalence, JHG, is not equality. What you seek is to use the power of Government to impose such a falsehood and in so doing to supress the truth about marriage.
The "only constant" has been that all marriages are allowed to conceive offspring together. None have ever been prohibited form having children, the way sibings are prohibited. That is true of same-sex marriages also, which are real, legal marriages.
ReplyDeleteWe could change that constant so that marriages can be prohibited from attempting to conceive children, but that would be really really bad and we shouldn't do it. We should prohibit people from procreating with someone of their same sex, just like we prohibit them from procreating with a sibling, and not allow either to marry, to preserve that constant, which is really really important.
Chairm accuses:
ReplyDelete"It is an anti-social goal, JHG, to flatten marriage so that it becomes indistinguishable from nonmarriage."
What would be the benefit of such a goal?
All too often some opponents of SSM mislead others to create and maintain the impression that GLBT people are not only uninterested in public welfare, that we actually wish to create chaos.
I can't speak for anyone else but I know I care deeply about those around me. Do me a favor and don't speak for me; if you want to know my thoughts, ask me and I'll tell you them.
I'm glad you care deeply about others,
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couples mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation? That means the man, woman and the child the potentially have together.
I mean you mention,
As late as the 1800's we had laws on the books that women were not allowed to own even the clothes on their backs. They were for all purposes chattel, property of passing from one male owner (her father) to another (her husband).
Yet there are two specific problems with that. 1) That is not a marriage policy, and 2) marriage has been a program which encouraged equality, it was first married women who were given the recognition of property ownership.
If anything promotes inequality for women, its a program which encourages two men to pretend their relationship is a marriage. Not only does that encourage those men to discriminate against a woman because of her gender, but it allows them to purchase her gender qualities as mere chattel to be traded. She is payed to have a child for them, or rather payed to abandon her child for their prejudice against her.
Do you support a program which explicitly targets both the man and the woman to encourage equality between them and equal participation in the child they raise together? Well, do you?
If you decide to take love out of marriage you still have a contract that pairs a couple for life
ReplyDeleteThere are two types of romance, one where people equally respect and support each other and another where two people use each other for their own gratification.
The second is loveless, the first is something where love can always be found.
If Mr Hosty believes that expecting the tolerance and respect of each other in creating together and raising together their children is removing love out of the marriage, then perhaps that speaks to the kind of love Mr Hosty wants to see marriage recognize...
Mr Hosty is full of gems, do I over-indulge to keep pointing them out?
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the opposition to same sex marriage is the same advice I give people who are against abortion; if you are opposed, don't have one! ;) (btw, I'm opposed)
Such a sense of civic duty, lets see how far that stretches....
* ... the same advice I give people who are opposed to murder; if you are opposed, don't murder someone!
* ... the same advice I give people who are opposed to stealing; if you are opposed, don't steal!
Certainly this same self-gratifying sense of civic duty that is espoused by Mr Hosty runs contrary to what he wants us to believe about him. (Read as each sentence builds to the punchline...)
All too often some opponents of SSM mislead others to create and maintain the impression that GLBT people are not only uninterested in public welfare, that we actually wish to create chaos.
I can't speak for anyone else but I know I care deeply about those around me. Do me a favor and don't speak for me; if you want to know my thoughts, ask me and I'll tell you them.
Another irony, the person who plays such a prominent role in KTN says of himself...
ReplyDeleteSafety is a big part of the GLBT movement. If the moral majority would have done a better job protecting GLBT people from unwarranted physical violence many of us activists would not be active. Safety is one of those elements that can motivate people from all backgrounds to a common cause, like we are now.
Perhaps the same person who understands this principle so well, really did pre-meditate the use of posting people's private information on the web to people who (on his site at least) promoted harassment and physical violence against.
But lets not stop there...
In another thread he accuses:
Many current members of Exodus International claim to have ride themselves of same sex attraction
Right after saying...
I know many GLBT community members that find it dangerous to share their true opinions with outsiders (heterosexuals) for fear of violence against them. Let's not forget that gay bashing is real.
Lets not forget ex-gay bashing is real, with sites devoted not only to bashing them but stalking them for any gay activity they may ever engage in.
Think on these facts, a gay or lesbian is more likely to be a victim of physical violence then a heterosexual. That is true. But they are more likely to be a victim of violence from another gay/lesbian then from a heterosexual.
if you want to know my thoughts, ask me and I'll tell you them.
ReplyDeleteA commendable policy, John. So, could you tell me your thoughts about whether people should have an equal right to attempt to procreate with either sex? (I think you've answered this before on KTN, but I'd like others here to see it)
Also, would you agree that the only constant of marriage has been that the married partners are approved and allowed to reproduce together?
"Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couples mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?"
ReplyDeleteI support a government policy that allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others.
"Yet there are two specific problems with that (marriage which puts women as property). 1) That is not a marriage policy, and 2) marriage has been a program which encouraged equality, it was first married women who were given the recognition of property ownership."
We should be able to agree that marriage is a contract. We should also be able to agree in the factual evidence in history. Women were considered property of their husbands as late as the 1870's right here in America, this is a fact that can be varified.
Perhaps now that marriage has changed it has become more equal for women, but my example of them being property of their husbands shows clearly that this was not always the case.
"If anything promotes inequality for women, its a program which encourages two men to pretend their relationship is a marriage."
There is no need to throw emotion into the debate and attempt to insult my marriage. If there is a logical point you were trying to make it was lost; try again.
"She is payed to have a child for them, or rather payed to abandon her child for their prejudice against her."
There are many children who are starving and homeless. Are they better off this way than in the loving home of a same sex family?
The fact is the GLBT community is trying to clean up the mess the heterosexual community has made of leaving unprovided for children all over the world as a result of their irresponsible procreation. Kids are still homeless and starving, if you are so concerned about them why not spend your time helping them instead of trying to demonize the GLBT community? Clearly by the traffic you are getting this blog seems a waste of time.
"There are two types of romance, one where people equally respect and support each other and another where two people use each other for their own gratification."
This seems a rather narrow view. I would imagine that most people see it as I do; there are many forms of romance.
"If Mr Hosty believes that expecting the tolerance and respect of each other in creating together and raising together their children is removing love out of the marriage..."
This comment is taken out of context, which I notice Opiners do often to distort the point their opponents make. Many times Opiners have said marriage is not about love, it's about procreation. Although I think marriage is about love in my instance I cannot speak for everyone and my comment was geared to show that my argument's point stand even if you attempt to say marriage is not about love.
On Lawn, you seem to want to skirt around the subject so let me bring it right back into the light. Does the GLBT community have a reason to fear gay bashing, or do you think that fear is unfounded?
ReplyDeleteYou claim ex-gay bashing, can you cite proof by example so we can see what constitutes your logic?
Mr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteSince when do you decide what is skirting and what is the "subject" of a thread on Opine?
Do you always resolve conflicts by assuming authority that isn't yours? Authority that we as admins rarely even exercise? When you divert two threads yesterday on various rants and loathing we responded to all of them, and now you complain I've skirted the issue?
LOL....
So be that as it may, I'll restate the question for Mr Hosty. As he invited,
ReplyDeleteif you want to know my thoughts, ask me and I'll tell you them.
The question posed earlier was...
"I'm glad you care deeply about others,
"Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couple's mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation? That means the man, woman and the child the potentially have together."
I then went on to explain just a little bit how that has acted in the past to help women gain equality with men, and protects them in the future against their exclusion as two men head a family as a marriage and then purchase from women their ability to have children with them.
So, while we've discussed your subject (without the narrow blinders you seem to require for your own rationale) you've not answered this question.
John: RK, one of the constants I've seen in marriage is that it is a legal contract acknowledged by both religion and government granting rights, priveledges and responsibilities to those who enter into one.
ReplyDeleteThis "constant" fits corporations every bit as much as it fits marriage.
The fact is, John, you have no constants about marriage that you wish for to stay that way (that is, relating to what it does and does not include).
All too often some opponents of SSM mislead others to create and maintain the impression that GLBT people are not only uninterested in public welfare, that we actually wish to create chaos.
I'm not saying you wish to, John, only that you refuse to even ask the question as to whether something you wish personally might not in fact lead to chaos.
Does the GLBT community have a reason to fear gay bashing, or do you think that fear is unfounded?
ReplyDeleteYou put this better before in that people do respond to threats by holing up into their shell. I don't fault them for doing so.
That is why I condemn violence and vandalism, and we on Opine have condemned it repeatedly in the past.
Its why we look with such disappointment at the vandalism and violence that is facilitated by groups like KTN. And more disappointing that the reaction from KTN is "suck it up" and that people standing up for marriage are getting what they deserve.
Women were considered property of their husbands as late as the 1870's right here in America, this is a fact that can be varified.
However, you did say it more accurately before, women could not (or rather not recognized as) owning property themselves. That put them at the mercy of others, either their husband or father or any male benefactor (which of the three turned out to be by in large the worst offenders of taking advantage of the women they were taking care of). That was a cultural inequality that marriage helped rectify (married women were recognized as owning property before any other women).
That is why your charge, that it was a change i the definition of marriage, is so erroneous. It was never a definition of marriage, where that policy existed it was a policy of women whether they were married or not.
A bad policy, one that over time marriage encouraged a resolution of. But only because marriage in integrating the genders facilitated the pursuit of equal gender participation in marriage -- and then all of society.
Neutering marriage, in your words "not impose their values on others" means that it is neutered of the capacity to encourage equality as it has in the past. Equality is a value, and it should continue to be expected in marriage.
Something that as a person seeking to discriminate against women in your own household governance, you seem to take great interest in thwarting. But then, you are free to do so if you wish. But calling that a marriage is like calling an all-white school a public institution of fairness and equality.
Calling your discrimination against women a marriage is an insult to equality.
We should be able to agree that marriage is a contract.
A marriage is, in part, a contract. But it is more then that.
If all you want is marriage to be any free contract between adults, we have a program already to handle such flexibility -- they are called contracts.
The fact is the GLBT community is trying to clean up the mess the heterosexual community has made
ReplyDeleteSo you join Arturo in claiming to be fixing the failed heterosexual experiment...
Marriage is an institution which seeks to ensure that the man and the woman recognize each others rights and responsibilities to the children they potentially have. I don't think that works so well when people like you want marriage to instead be, "a government policy that allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others"
As R.K points out, that is the cry of social anarchy, not social responsibility.
You calling that marriage is an insult to the altruism that marriage is meant to encourage.
Many times Opiners have said marriage is not about love, it's about procreation.
Talk about your distortions :)
Its more accurate to say marriage is not a states way to sanction or gauge love. Such romantic regulation is rather Orwellian to contemplate.
Marriage is about love, its about fostering love between the people that need it the most -- the father and mother and the child potentially have together. That comes from the capacity of tolerance, respect, and recognition of each other's rights. That fosters love.
That is a love that people who discriminate against women because of their gender, or against men because of their gender, will never find. Love requires tolerance and respect that they are unwilling to share indiscriminately.
As I've told you many times, at the personal level marriage isn't about recognizing any meretricious relationship as love. There are a number of court cases re-affirming that fact. Its about loving the person you combined with to have children together because that is the responsible thing to do -- for their sakes.
You are the one that interprets that as being without love, which means obviously that you feel a meretricious relationship is more "love" then what respect, responsibility and tolerance fosters. Its your words after all.
So lets deal with the question again. I don't believe answering that you support some other institution answers if you support this specific institution. So I ask again...
Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couples mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?
The fact is the GLBT community is trying to clean up the mess the heterosexual community has made
ReplyDeleteThat mess has been caused, not by "the heterosexual community", but by social changes (and, likely, legal changes) which in many cases have produced unintended negative effects. Although it's probably a term you worship at the feet of, John, the fact is that social change can be good, bad, or mixed, and frequently produces unintended results.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI described SSM campaign which demands that society "flatten marriage so that it becomes indistinguishable from nonmarriage."
ReplyDeleteJHG you have not distinguished marriage from nonmarriage. Pointing at a license is insufficient because the thing being licensed is at issue, not the license.
As I said, you can't even distinguish SSM from the nonmarriage category. What is being licensed? What are its distinctive features, at law, such that eligibility criteria can be sustained and just?
When you refer to the notion of a "contract" you are merely saying that people make an agreement of some kind. Actually, you elaborated by saying an agreement of any kind. The notion of a particular kind of contract has now been discarded by you even as you brought it up.
When you asked, "What would be the benefit of such a goal [i.e. flatten marriage]", I thought you would be responsible enough to provide the answer. It is your goal -- the goal of SSM argumentation -- and your vague notion of a contract has reinforced my observation.
No, John, it is not an accusation but a clear-eyed observation. Your comment confirmed it. Perhaps with your question you accused yourself.
What is the purpose, or simply the goal, of flattening marriage into a vague contract that fails to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage?
Based on the SSM campaign and its argumentation, and even based on your own words JHG, the idea is to use marriage for a nonmarriage purpose: to innoculate a certain kind of identity politics. It certainly is not about delivering government bennies to the adult homosexual population where the participation rates in SSM are very low -- under whatever guise you might consider, including the very broad category of same-sex householding. About 90% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households. The participation rates are not much higher in very gay-friendly places. SSM is a marginal practice within the homosexual population. SSM is a lousy vehicle for reaching the vast majority of nonparticipating adult homosexuals.
On the other hand, the one-sexed category is much broader than that which is defined, by SSMers, by gayness. Indeed, the nonmarriage category is even larger. And the need for protections, based on certain vulnerabilities that arise from a lack or diminishment of sex integration and responsible procreation -- especially for children being raised in such situations -- provides the basis for a protective status.
The provision for designated beneficiaries has long-existed and can be sustained and modified as a protective status. It is not to be confused with the preferential status of the foundational social institution of marriage. And this nonmarital alternative is not marriage-light nor is it defined by sexual orientation nor by identity politics.
There. Protection equality. Nonmarriage need not flatten marriage. The social institution's core meaning has influence and helps to bring order to society. On the other hand, flattening marriage turns the clock way back to a premarriage period or to the social chaos of widespread lack of sex integration and lack of responsible procreation. Indeed, by strengthening marriage and reaffirming its core meaning, the nonmarital trends can be stalled if not reversed. SSM can do none of that hard work for society.
By the way, JHG, you failed to respond to the point made earlier: even the examples you gave about (married) women reinforced the fact that at its core marriage integrated the sexes. Modern notions of such integration may be very different, but as On Lawn said, the modern notion of spousal equality is an innovation -- or a variation -- upon a universal theme of marriage.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that marriage is an agreement, we can agree that it is a contract. To wit: a contract to marry.
So what is marriage? It is a social institution into which people enter with consent to all that the core meaning entails. And that includes the the marital presumption of paternity the sexual basis of which does not apply to the one-sexed arrangement -- sexualized or not.
Romance is a relatively modern tradition. And SSM argumentation disparages tradition as the limitation on who is and is not eligibile to marry -- or to contract to marry as you might put it.
And then there are those who would consent to an agreement to marry but who are ineligible. And those lines are drawn around the core of marriage itself. Not around mere consent; not around a private agreement but a public relationship that is definitively a sexual type of relationship. And that sexual basis is established from at least two univeral features of this social institution.
1. Sex integration.
2. Responsible procreation.
And a 3rd is obvious -- indeed it is definitive of social institutions of all kinds -- the core meaning is a coherent whole and not a loose bunch of bits and pieces. Items 1 and 2 are combined to be more than the sum of the parts. The secondary and teritiary aspects of marriage are likes spokes in a wheel; the core meaning is the hub which holds it together -- provides it coherency.
Now, when the core is jettisoned, as per the demands of SSM argumentation, then the social institution loses its coherency and, thus, its influence in bringing order to human community.
Maybe, for you JHG, it does not seem anti-social to deinstitutionalize marriage. Maybe, for you, it is not a form of chaos to deny the core of the most pro-child social institution we have. Maybe, for you, it is not anti-marriage to flatten marriage.
You claim that the goal is equality. But, as I said, you are really talking about forcing a false equivalence. The route to that falsehood is to remove from marriage whatever does not fit your notion of an SSM contract. The tragedy, at least for those who feel the way you have said you feel, is that when marriage loses its special reason for special status (in a merger with SSM), there is no special status left for you to attach such a contract. This should illustrate that the equivalence is false and even self-defeating.
What is the special a reason for a license to SSM? How is that reason not applicable to the rest of the nonmarriage category of living arrangements and types of relationships?
Love? Romance? Sexual attraction? None of these are legal requirements and none of these are definitive of the special status of the social instituiton of marriage in our society. To assert that these do the heavy lifting is to confess naivete or to mislead knowingly.
Special reason for special status, JHG, is missing from your vague notion of contract.
What could you have meant, JHG, when you said that the "GLBT community" (please define) is "trying to clean up" (please define) "the mess: (please define) "the heterosexual community" (please define) "has made" (please clarify).
ReplyDeleteThe request for clarification would go along the lines of -- if, for example, you point to the rise in nonmarital trends, then, you will have to explain how flattening marriage is a fix supplied by this or that community.
Look, you really don't need to shift into hyperbole and claim that GLBT are the saviors of society or something. But if that is where you meant to shift, please elaborate. I suspect you are merely indluging in the rhetorical excesses of identity politics so if that's the actual case, just sayso and we can return to the actual topic of the original blogpost.
Chairm, you write of the presumption of paternity as though it were designed to allow adultery. Are you implying that married couples don't have to have sex with each other because the presumption of paternity makes it OK to have babies by other men? I think one of the core aspects you are missing is sexual exclusivity, and talk of the presumption of paternity as though it stands alone risks condoning adultery.
ReplyDelete"Since when do you decide what is skirting and what is the "subject" of a thread on Opine?
ReplyDeleteDo you always resolve conflicts by assuming authority that isn't yours?"
I get to decide what I'm going to discuss. You have control over your blog but not me. If you want to have a discussion it will be a give and take situation. I've responded to a great deal of what you wanted, it is fair to expect you to answer a few of my questions too.
Your tirade didn't answer the question; Does the GLBT community have a reason to fear gay bashing, or do you think that fear is unfounded?
Seems easier to just answer the question than to attack the person asking. ;)
You seem confused. You asked:
"Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couple's mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation? That means the man, woman and the child the potentially have together."
I answered this question above, but let me quote myself for you:
"I support a government policy that allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others."
You went on to say:
"So, while we've discussed your subject (without the narrow blinders you seem to require for your own rationale) you've not answered this question."
Clearly I did answer your question, you didn't like my answer. Could you show me where you answered mine? I would like to know where you stand on gay bashing but can't find the answer you allude to. The closest I see is this:
"You put this better before in that people do respond to threats by holing up into their shell. I don't fault them for doing so."
It still doesn't answer the question though. Let me explain the reason I am asking you. If the fear is valid than our response as a society must follow. The next quesiton would be what form does that action take? It's a conversation onto itself, but perhaps the responsibility part of it is scaring you away from answering.
"That was a cultural inequality that marriage helped rectify."
ReplyDeleteMarriage and how it was written by law as a contract helped promote the inequality of women. The changes to the institution of marriage via the law helped to promote equality. I think you are trying to confuse people who may not check their facts and just go on your word. It has always been my contention that people should check their facts when following exchanges like this, do you have any proof you'd like to cite that promote your opinions?
"That is why your charge, that it was a change i the definition of marriage, is so erroneous."
I think you are trying to change the original question of this thread to suit your new argument point, but it was and still is:
Hasn't Marriage Always Been Changing?
My response fits well for the question.
"Neutering marriage, in your words "not impose their values on others" means that it is neutered of the capacity to encourage equality as it has in the past. Equality is a value, and it should continue to be expected in marriage."
Nothing about same sex marriages prohibits heterosexual couples from marrying. Your statement seems like an attempt to misinform, would you like to clarify why it is not?
"Something that as a person seeking to discriminate against women in your own household governance, you seem to take great interest in thwarting."
Saying this about me is like me saying about you that you are discriminating against gay men because you don't have one in your household. Would that be a fair statement to make of you?
"But calling that a marriage is like calling an all-white school a public institution of fairness and equality."
Funny how people who want to create an heterosexuals only club are the ones now claiming discrimination. That would be amusing if it weren't so sad. I hope that one day someone will get through to you and you will see people as indiviuals rather than some sort of malevolent mob you seem to see now.
"If all you want is marriage to be any free contract between adults, we have a program already to handle such flexibility -- they are called contracts."
I didn't say that marriage was only a contract or that was all I wanted of it. I was asked what constitutes a marriage and that is part of it that can't be argued away.
"Marriage is an institution which seeks to ensure that the man and the woman recognize each others rights and responsibilities to the children they potentially have."
ReplyDeleteWe live in a world that is imperfect, you heterosexual folk don't always get married when you have kids, and you aren't always responsible with procreation. This shortcoming has nothing particular to do with marriage unless you are going to legislate that people having chlidren have to get married.
The logical thing to do is think of the children and their needs first before our own. The fact that even though the GLBt community is doing their part to help eleviate the situation there is still more work to be done, children are still homeless and hungry.
"You calling that marriage is an insult to the altruism that marriage is meant to encourage."
Thanks for the petty insult, but that doesn't feed children. I noticed you skirted another of my questions; do you htink children are better off where ever they are instead of in the loving home of a same sex couple?
Now instead of getting on your high horse and dodging the question, just try answering it for the sake of actual dialog.
"Marriage is about love, its about fostering love between the people that need it the most -- the father and mother and the child potentially have together. That comes from the capacity of tolerance, respect, and recognition of each other's rights. That fosters love."
Many people know going in that they are not oging to have children. For these people marriage is about those other things you've mentioned with which I can agree.
"Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couples mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?"
Yes. I support "marriage" which encompasses both ideas. This works in Massachusetts, it can work elsewhere too as we are starting to see. Marriage can be inclusive with having to be restrictive. I see no value of making an "all white" issue of marriage by exluding same sex couples. You have failed in convincing me there is a need or value, but my mind is still open.
What you have in me is a person who is angry at a lot of the misinformation out there and is willing to combat it as best he can through the resources he has. However I am still someone who cares enough about the community to be careful not to allow my actions to harm it. All you have to do is provide me with varifiable facts that prove my equaity in marriage provides social harm and I will be in your corner.
Failing that expectation I will continue to call out what I see as attempts to deceive society and help the uninformed moderate middle get the information they need to be fully informed voters when and if they need. My involvement with KTN is just that, an attempt to share facts, like petition fraud.
Chairm, I would ask that you find a question or two that you want a response to and explain them in less words. I simply don't have enough time in the day to answer all that you say in one sitting.
ReplyDeleteWhat's on your mind pal? ;)
I'll let Chairm respond first, but for now, just one point, John:
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that marriage was only a contract or that was all I wanted of it. I was asked what constitutes a marriage and that is part of it that can't be argued away.
You said that that (that it's a contract) was the only thing constant about marriage, implying that anything else is subject to the winds of change. That doesn't help your case much.
Clearly I did answer your question, you didn't like my answer.
ReplyDeleteOh you did give a response, but it failed to actually answer the question. That has nothing to do with my personal preference. Here's the response again.
I support a government policy that allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others.
The larger problem was that your answer was about something other then the question. As I explained earlier...
"So lets deal with the question again. I don't believe answering that you support some other institution answers if you support this specific institution. So I ask again...
Does this mean that while I support government recognition of same-sex couples mutual commitment and trust for each other, do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?"
That is a very specific reason why your answer falls short. I want to know if you support a specific institution. Its not a difficult or even trick question :)
Now you accuse me of simply not liking the answer, and then complain about my answer. Of my answer you claim...
It still doesn't answer the question though.
It looks like the same thing I'm saying. But lets look at what you supply in the place one would expect to find a reason...
Let me explain the reason I am asking you. If the fear is valid than our response as a society must follow.
Is that really a reason why my response doesn't answer your question? Let me repeat it again for your convenience...
"You put this better before in that people do respond to threats by holing up into their shell. I don't fault them for doing so.
"That is why I condemn violence and vandalism, and we on Opine have condemned it repeatedly in the past.
"Its why we look with such disappointment at the vandalism and violence that is facilitated by groups like KTN. And more disappointing that the reaction from KTN is 'suck it up' and that people standing up for marriage are getting what they deserve."
If the fear is valid than our response as a society must follow. The next quesiton would be what form does that action take?
ReplyDeleteFortunately that was also addressed :)
"Another irony, the person who plays such a prominent role in KTN says of himself...
"'Safety is a big part of the GLBT movement. If the moral majority would have done a better job protecting GLBT people from unwarranted physical violence many of us activists would not be active. Safety is one of those elements that can motivate people from all backgrounds to a common cause, like we are now.'
"Perhaps the same person who understands this principle so well, really did pre-meditate the use of posting people's private information on the web to people who (on his site at least) promoted harassment and physical violence against."
An all too convenient tool that you understood as stifling, not encouraging open debate.
As far as I'm concerned you are continuing to prove the case of KTN as a group pre-meditating on actions to facilitate intimidation.
But the case has already been well established...
Marriage and how it was written by law as a contract helped promote the inequality of women.
ReplyDeleteThat's just the same premise that was already discredited. Marriage did not promote inequality, women inside and outside of marriage were not recognized as owning any property. Marriage facilitated no additional subjugation, and history shows that it encouraged the rectification of that inequality -- women who were married were the first to obtain the right to own property.
That means that married women owned property while the others were unable to. Marriage promoted equality. The same can be said of voting rights, etc...
I think you are trying to confuse people who may not check their facts and just go on your word.
Interesting accusation. You'd think that this information is new to you or something.
It has always been my contention that people should check their facts when following exchanges like this, do you have any proof you'd like to cite that promote your opinions?
Isn't it interesting to find out that not only is the evidence something Hosty has seen before, its evidence he presented himself.
Talk about checking one's facts :)
Me : > "Neutering marriage, in your words 'not impose their values on others' means that it is neutered of the capacity to encourage equality as it has in the past. Equality is a value, and it should continue to be expected in marriage."
Mr Host: > Nothing about same sex marriages prohibits heterosexual couples from marrying. Your statement seems like an attempt to misinform, would you like to clarify why it is not?
What is funny is that your statement is verifying the problem I mention in my statement. Nothing in neutered marriage encourages marriage equality, people can for their own gender-exclusive and discriminatory marriages. That is what you mean by not wanting people to enforce their values on you right? None of this equality and tolerance of another gender for you...
For someone who chafed at being labeled as someone promoting social anarchy, you continue to support the ideals of social anarchy pretty strongly.
Saying this about me is like me saying about you that you are discriminating against gay men because you don't have one in your household. Would that be a fair statement to make of you?
LOL! Mr Hosty has just brilliantly found out that expecting equality is discrimination against people who discriminate!
Perhaps the south will rise again, when they realize they simply weren't as smart as Mr Hosty in pointing out that flaw of equality. Why, an integrated school simply discriminates against segregationists?
Never the less, I have no problem with Mr Hosty's choice of partner. We do have a freedom of personal association.
And he continues:
Funny how people who want to create an heterosexuals only club are the ones now claiming discrimination. That would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
So well used and unquestioned is his take on life that he makes the same gaff over and over again. I actually have no problem with gays getting married, I think this whole argument that gays are unable to love honor and cherish someone because they are of a different gender is over-rated.
But creating some counterfeit organization which, as Mr Hosty wants, removes all expectation social values serves no one. Especially those who put full stock and faith in the new value-less institution.
We live in a world that is imperfect, you heterosexual folk don't always get married when you have kids, and you aren't always responsible with procreation.
ReplyDeleteYeah, its like we need an institution to help promote the equal recognition of responsibility of those who create children together, to each other and their potential children.
Do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?
Because so far you've only explicitly stated support for institutions which "allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others". Values on the chopping block being responsibility to their kids.
As you stated in the past, you see marriage has having nothing to do with procreation. You even called anyone who saw such a link as unintelligent.
Your attempt to deconstruct everything I say leaves room to ask, what solutions do you provide?
ReplyDeleteNo one in the anti-gay camp seems to want to admit that same sex marriage works provably in Massachusetts.
Sorry boys, but proof works much better at convincing people than the fear based fantasies you try to spin as reality.
Is there any proof you want to challenge these facts with? I expect not. More likely we will have more of the same tired ad hominem attacks coupled with some links back to old statements that don't answer a damn thing.
You realize that you can't fool everyone forever with these tactics, right?
As much as I like talking to the opposition there really needs to be some sort of order to how I can respond here. First off, you are making too many questions for any person who has responsibilities to answer and reasonably be productive. Perhaps you could limit yourself to one point you want to speak about, then move onto the next after that point has been satisfactorily addressed?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am just being silly and you are all going to continue to inundate me with a blizzard of points and then charge that I haven't answered them, but I have to at least give you the benefit of asking you to cooperate. ;)
John, I have argued from the start (and I have stated here repeatedly) that the full effect of neutering marriage will likely not be seen until a generation has grown up under it, that generation having actually absorbed from the start the new understanding of marriage as a neutered institution.
ReplyDeleteCan you point to me any major opponent of neutered marriage (not just a bum from off the street) who said the results would be obvious in only five to ten years?
Are you going to take this same position in regard to environmental issues? Are you going to say, with regard to untested chemicals introduced into the atmosphere, that "if we don't see negative effects after five to six years, we never will?" Like with global warming, for instance? Boy, that happened right after we started putting chemicals into the atmosphere, didn't it? (Yes, I know, it's still being debated even now).
Can you prove to me that the effects of neutering marriage will be fully apparent after only six to ten years of its implementation?
I have already given a number of predictions about what may happen. I don't know if you read them, but they are in the archives here. You should have read them the first time; if you didn't, go look for them. (If not, I'll find them myself when I can. I'm not retyping them all now).
You're asking us to prove exactly what will happen after a generation of neutered marriage.
Again, I reject your concept of the burden of proof here. It's on you, John, not us. For some reason, the simple idea of making marriage merely between "any two persons" has never taken hold throughout history. Which is not to say that it was never attempted. On that basis, we conclude that it is a huge step in the dark. We've taken a few steps in it, but we still have no idea what lies ahead, and it's still dark.
John, if you think that "unless you can prove, now, exactly how things will go wrong, than we should proceed with it", sorry, my challenge still stands:
You and I and everybody else, supporters and opponents of neutered marriage, all oppose people marrying their pets. And, granted, there's no moral comparison, and in that issue there's the very different issue of only one able to consent.
Nevertheless, prove to me exactly how allowing one person, or a small number, to marry their pets is going to harm society.
Don't evade with something like "I'll worry about that when there's a movement to do that" or "The lack of consent makes all the difference" or "It's against the law". (Oh, and don't assume in this case what you argue marriage does not require anyway). This is about the particular standard of proof you demand of us, John, and if you can't prove exactly how it hurts society you demonstrate the absurdity of it.
Otherwise, prove to me that we know that all the cultural effects of neutering marriage will be fully obvious and measurable in a mere six to ten years, and that it will not take much longer than that.
If you can't do either of these things, John, than please stop using this line, because you know it's already been dealt with.
And, BTW, nobody ever said that it was all about just the divorce rate. In fact, just what opponents of neutering marriage said that it was? It's also about the marriage rate. Among much, much more.
Your attempt to deconstruct everything I say leaves room to ask, what solutions do you provide?
ReplyDeleteSolution to what, specifically?
Solutions need a good problem statement. I'll give an example... lets look at what marriage is meant to be a solution for and how. You presented the problem pretty well when you said,
We live in a world that is imperfect, you heterosexual folk don't always get married when you have kids, and you aren't always responsible with procreation.
To which I replied....
"Yeah, its like we need an institution to help promote the equal recognition of responsibility of those who create children together, to each other and their potential children."
Which is why I ask you...
"Do you support a program which encourages equal recognition of rights for everyone involved in procreation?
"Because so far you've only explicitly stated support for institutions which 'allows people to decide for themselves what is best, and I support the varied decisions that do not impose their values on others'. Values on the chopping block being responsibility to their kids.
"As you stated in the past, you see marriage has having nothing to do with procreation. You even called anyone who saw such a link as unintelligent."
You don't see how conflicting and destructive that is to how people expect equality in marriage between the mother, father and potential child. Or you don't care. Which is just the same as saying the problem shows up in you. Your own arguments undermine what you claim won't happen :)
For fun I looked at what you call proof (which like so many other examples shows much the opposite of what you claim), and honestly laughed. I'm surprised people are still following a fallacious meme. Its like arguing that children will eat more fresh vegetables if we count ketchup, salsa and fries as fresh vegetables.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you are gaming the results in that way, is itself a result :)
Perhaps I am just being silly and you are all going to continue to inundate me with a blizzard of points and then charge that I haven't answered them....
ReplyDeleteI won't call you silly, John, but your questions always beg more questions. You can't expect anything less than for us to point out the questions your questions beg. And I for one will do so whether you answer them or not.
"John, I have argued from the start (and I have stated here repeatedly) that the full effect of neutering marriage will likely not be seen until a generation has grown up under it, that generation having actually absorbed from the start the new understanding of marriage as a neutered institution."
ReplyDeleteI realize you believe this, my question to you is what research do you base this opinion on? Is there some fact based report that I could review that supports you fears? Otherwise it seems we are letting our fears govern us; that's not the American way.
I'm glad you used the environment as an analogy. There are reports that show the harm factually and measurably to the environment and suggest a cause, effect, and solution. These facts can be varified and are tangible; where is the same type of information that proves harm to society from same sex marriage?
"Again, I reject your concept of the burden of proof here."
No, it really isn't my burden. Our courts are designed in a fashion that the accuser has the responsibility of proof, not the other way around. Minorities do not have a responsibility to prove their equality in order to recieve them.
We can agree to disagree on this issue and move on if you want, but I'm confident on my position.
I'm not going to respond to further comments about marrying your pets, you've been given a proper response to that argument and you refuse to listen.
Hosty-G: I support a government policy that allows people to decide for themselves what is best...
ReplyDeleteThat was exactly the justification for slavery used in the past. I'm sure slave owners weren't interested in sowing social chaos, and demanded scientific studies showing the ill effects of slavery on a community before they would abandon the practice, too.
Let me just save Hosty-G the trouble of writing his response. He doesn't support slavery and only wants his arguments to be believed when they are applied to neutering marriage, not to any other subject. It is not his fault his "reasoning" would justify all kinds of abuse and injustice.
(We'll save Hosty-G the embarrassment of explaining exactly how having an institution directed at procreation inhibits him "deciding for [himself] what is best." How does it affect his relationship if Bob and Mary down the street are married? We already know Hosty-G has lived as he has seen fit since long before Goodridge. He has said so many times in the past. There's no reason to further dwell on that particular hypocrisy in his rhetoric.)
On Lawn: Solution to what, specifically?
ReplyDeleteWow! Not the question, but the fact that Hosty-G still cannot answer it. You'd think if Hosty-G is so wedded to a solution he'd have taken the time to find a problem, first.
John: There are reports that show the harm factually and measurably to the environment and suggest a cause, effect, and solution.
ReplyDeleteWhoa. How long was it after we began to introduce all of the harmful chemicals into the atmosphere before those reports could be made? You just helped my case, not yours.
I'm not going to respond to further comments about marrying your pets, you've been given a proper response to that argument and you refuse to listen.
Oh, I've listened, but your response is not a response at all to what I asked. Not by the same burden of proof you demand of us in regard to same-sex marriage. You never answer, let alone prove, how it harms society, yet that's what you demand we do in regard to the change to marriage that you desire. (Oh, believe me, I agree that marrying pets would harm society, but I can't explain exactly how right now either). If you don't understand this, maybe you fail to grasp what analogy is.
Our courts are designed in a fashion that the accuser has the responsibility of proof, not the other way around.
This is not necessarily true when it comes to traditions as old as marriage, and several courts (New York, Maryland, Washington) have not seen it as you do. You, of course, would argue that those courts are just not seeing something, while I argue that the courts that have ruled as you like are not seeing something else. In any case, as court rulings across the country have been highly split on this I don't think you can claim deference to our legal system to bolster your argument.
Another way of putting it on burden of proof, John: When equality is being claimed despite a major qualitative inequality, the burden of proof is on the one claiming equality to show that that qualitative inequality is so irrelevant as to be of no importance.
ReplyDeleteWhich point would you like me to respond to? ;)
ReplyDeleteHosty before: >>>>> I get to decide what I'm going to discuss. You have control over your blog but not me. If you want to have a discussion it will be a give and take situation.
ReplyDeleteHosty after: > Which point would you like me to respond to? ;)
My suggestion? Try answering, being honest and forthright.
Here's another irony...
Mr Hosty: >>> Your attempt to deconstruct everything I say leaves room to ask, what solutions do you provide?
To which I asked, "Solution to what, specifically? Solutions need a good problem statement."
After Mr Hosty replied without even acknowledging the question, Op-Ed noted, "Wow! Not the question, but the fact that Hosty-G still cannot answer it. You'd think if Hosty-G is so wedded to a solution he'd have taken the time to find a problem, first."
Avoidance is one thing, but it gets even deeper than wishing it will go away and no one will notice. This also shows his hypocrisy, his continued expectation of rules that others have to follow, but not him.
Mr Hosty: >> "No, it really isn't my burden. Our courts are designed in a fashion that the accuser has the responsibility of proof, not the other way around."
In claiming the need for a solution, Mr Hosty alludes to a problem in marriage expecting equality (equal rights recognition of both genders and the child they potentially have together).
He becomes the accuser, he becomes the person who needs to show proof. So what does he do? Ignore the implication there was a problem to begin with?
But its still noticed. He can reply if he wants to or not, of course.
The more of these con-tricks he tries, (especially his passive aggressive hosty-lity of accusing others of what he himself is doing) the more we point it out. Its only fair.
RK, you've done good work in driving Hosty into his usual denial of burden of proof. He is doing some of the most curious hoop tricks to avoid it, and now it is simply time to let him state the problem and proof of the problem so we can understand why he wants to neuter marriage.
RK, in light of the point I made in the previous comment, I want to re-iterate something Op-Ed said earlier.
ReplyDelete"We'll save Hosty-G the embarrassment of explaining exactly how having an institution directed at procreation inhibits him "deciding for [himself] what is best." How does it affect his relationship if Bob and Mary down the street are married? We already know Hosty-G has lived as he has seen fit since long before Goodridge. He has said so many times in the past. There's no reason to further dwell on that particular hypocrisy in his rhetoric."
Only I don't think we should save him from it. I expect he will save himself from it somehow, no matter what it takes ;)
R.K.: "John, I have argued from the start (and I have stated here repeatedly) that the full effect of neutering marriage will likely not be seen until a generation has grown up under it, that generation having actually absorbed from the start the new understanding of marriage as a neutered institution."
ReplyDeleteJohn: I realize you believe this, my question to you is what research do you base this opinion on? Is there some fact based report that I could review that supports you fears? Otherwise it seems we are letting our fears govern us; that's not the American way.
Please note that nothing in my paragraph could be reasonably described as "fears". The statement was that a generation which grows up knowing Perception A, and has it replaced with Perception B later in life, is likely to internalize Perception B differently from the next generation which has known nothing but Perception B. Ask a sociologist or psychologist whether this is or is not likely to be true. (But put it to him in general terms as I just did, rather than tying it to just one issue). I think John is the one who fears that it might in fact be true and does not want to deal with it.
A common tactic of John's is to read a statement which is actually dependent on something highly general---in this case the difference between the generations in the internalization of a new perception---as something which is specific to same-sex marriage and depends on nothing other than one's views on that.
Going back to this statement of John's:
ReplyDeleteDoes the GLBT community have a reason to fear gay bashing, or do you think that fear is unfounded?
Let me explain the reason I am asking you. If the fear is valid than our response as a society must follow.
Violence against any people, including gays, is illegal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Threats against any people, including gays, is illegal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Harrassment against any people, including gays, is illegal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Yes, gays may have reason to fear all of the above, as do many other people, including those who choose to inform the police about criminal activity in their neighborhoods, or those who speak out regarding many controversial issues, or even those who speak out against neutered marriage. It only takes one kook to give someone reason to fear.
Tell me though, John, what form of gay bashing is not already illegal? (That some police departments don't enforce laws against the things I mentioned above is a separate question; when they are not enforced, yes, then some action should be taken.) Of course, I know by "taking action", you mean something more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn Howard [@ 8/23/2009 09:01:00 AM], sexual monogamy is intrinsic to the marital presumption of paternity; criteria for rebuttal share the same sexual basis as the presumption, obviously, so adultery does provide grounds to challenge the legal presumption that the husband is the father of his wife's children during their marriage. There are nuances in how a society, through its legal system, manages the challenge criteria but the first principle of responsible procreation is vigorously enforced.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there is an overflow effect that extends this principle to unwed paternity: each procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into the world. The sexual basis for this is the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation (note, John Howard, I am not referring to human manufacture) and the social basis is the unity of fatherhood and motherhood for the well-being of both parents and children. The nuances come in balancing the sexual and social basis for the sake of 1) the best interests of the children, each parent, the procreative duo, the marriage, and the social institution itself.
No fair reading of my comments can lead to a conclusion that the marital presumption (at the core of the social institution) encourages or is indifferent to adultery or to non-exclusivity of the sexual union of husband and wife.
What has "gay bashing" got to do with the discussion of marriage? Right, it is yet another attempt by JHG to press gay identity politics into a discussion of a foundational social institution the core meaning of which he rejects and a special satus he seeks to flatten.
ReplyDeleteJHG said: "Nothing about same sex marriages prohibits heterosexual couples from marrying."
ReplyDeleteTwo heterosexual men can not marry so the distinction is not sexual orientation. Indeed, sexual orientation is not in the marriage law's criteria for eligibility and ineligibility.
Marriage is not SSM. Enabling a merger of SSM with marriage replaces marriage recognition with recognition of a replacement that is constrained by the limitations of SSM.
If SSM was defined by sexual orientation, then, the places that have such a status would have made gayness a legal requirement. None have done so.
And no place that has affirmed marriage as the union of husband and wife has made gayness a requirement for ineligibility.
But confusing nonmarriage with marriage does change what is recognized. SSMers seek to change the law and the marriage culture. The goal is to flatten marital status.
JHG, your own fear speaks to this: your fear of being anything but indiscriminate. You can't even distinguish SSM from nonmarriage. That would be your starting place, if you were serious about special status for SSM; but instead you start by deconstructing the social institution both in a legal sense (with anti-constitution) and in a cultural sense (with anti-social arguments) and all with identity politics as both your crutch and your weapon of choice.
JHG: "you heterosexual folk don't always get married when you have kids, and you aren't always responsible with procreation."
ReplyDeleteIf you understand that to be of societal significance, then, you ought to recognize the societal significance of the core meaningn of marriage: provision for sex integration combined with responsible procreation. This is a foundational social institution -- and a longstanding one at that -- which influences behavior. When it declines, nonmarital trends rise. It appears that you acknowledge that the nonmarital trends are not good for society. So the solution is not to attack the core meaning of marriage but rather to affirm it and to strengthen its influence on current and future generations.
This is pretty obvious stuff. You seem lost in confuddlement even though the truth is staring you in the face and you are even starting to admit it. But identity politics tends to blind its adherents to what is right under your nose. Gay identity politics is no exception.
JHG has but one thing on his mind: "do you htink children are better off where ever they are instead of in the loving home of a same sex couple?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean the two sisters two doors down the road? Or perhaps the mother and daughter raising four children in the apartment building on the corner? Maybe you meant to emphasize sexual orientation or "gayness" because for you this is not about the children afterall.
JHG your comments provide opportunities to debunk SSM argumentation. That's is the extent of your usefulness in our comment sections.
ReplyDeleteJHG said: "Chairm, I would ask that you find a question or two that you want a response to and explain them in less words."
I've asked questions of you, one at a time, here in Opine's comment sections in a long series of discussions in which the main focus was on clarifying your point of view.
Without explaination you deleted your side of that exchange. Your behavior demonstrates that you remain an untrustworthy and a dishonest participant in our comment sections.
You are an advocate of an anti-marriage crusade. Whatever your personal life may or may not entail, in the blogosphere your behavior discredits your name.
As an example of the duplicity (or perhaps hopeless incompetence) of JHG, consider the following:
ReplyDeleteJHG: "Our courts are designed in a fashion that the accuser has the responsibility of proof, not the other way around. Minorities do not have a responsibility to prove their equality in order to recieve them."
When JHG says, minorities, he really means to press identity politics into the marriage issue. There is no gay or lesbian minority identified in the eligibilty criteria of marriage law. Indeed, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gayness, and regardless of a supposed minority/majority category, no individual is denied equal status in the marriage law.
Yet the Massachusetts Goodridge opinion managed to turn constitutional jurisprudence upside down. The pro-SSM opinion was supposedly decided on a standard known as rational basis review. That places the onus on the complaintant, not the government's marriage licensing authority.
That court's justices were 0 to 7 on deciding the case based on sexual orientation discrimination. And only 1 to 7 on deciding on the basis of sex discrimination.
So instead the slim 4-3 majority chose to put aside the unambiguous meaning of the marriage law, to discard the core meaning of the social institution recognized by that law, and to press gay identity politics into constitutional jurisprudence -- with no basis in the facts (how could the court have decided the sexual orientation of the plaintiffs, for example?), no basis in the state's marriage laws (no sexual orientation criteria), no basis in the state's constitution (the judiciary is not empowered to rewrite statutes that are unambiguous), and no basis in the social institution that merits special status for special reason.
Equality existed before the imposition of SSM in that state. The dissenting opinions dissected and refuted the majority's over-reach and correctly recognized it an abuse of judicial review.
Meanwhile, if the gay identity politics is removed from SSM argumentation, then, the complaint is really a call for protection equality for the nonmarriage category of living arrangements and types of relationships (especially those with children). And such protections, applied equally to all "minorities" and applied indifferent to sexual orientation, would be based on the goal of mitigating certain vulnerabilities experienced outside of marriage. These arising from the lack of (or the diminishment of) sex integration combined with responsible procreation.
The nonmarital trends point to a societal problem that an SSM merger would, at best, do nothing to resolve and would more likely entrench and make worse.
The harm is not in what this or that gay twosome might do. The harm is in the SSM merger which would flatten marital status, blind government (in the laws and social policy) and nongovernmental society (in the culture and socially) to the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. The harm begins with denying what marriage is and in rejecting as bigoted the most pro-child social institution we have.
Nothing about SSM comes close to the societal significance of sex integration and responsible procreation. So an SSM-merger would be unjust on that basis alone. How such a merger might be imposed is another question: the abuse of judicial review is an abuse of the court system, an abuse of the principles of good governance, and an abuse of the very notion of equality.
As I said in an earlier comment in this discussion, SSM argumentation seeks to impose a false equivalence in the name of identity politics. JHG's remark about the courts is a prime example that when it comes to the SSM campaign, the advocates are not for justice, but for "just us".
"So you join Arturo in claiming to be fixing the failed heterosexual experiment..."
ReplyDeleteI'm not giving much time to this thread, but I did catch this.
Any time a child is raised in the good home of a gay couple (or an infertile couple), instead of the failed heterosexual twosome that created him, that is a good thing. In this blog in the past, Opiner Fitz, has said it's better for children to be stigmatized as bastards instead of being adopted into a good home.